Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the Standing Orders hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Order relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made:

SCHEDULE (A)—AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS

Standing Order 4, line 24, leave out "proposed."

Standing Order 21, line 6, leave out "company," and insert "person."

Standing Order 22, line 11, leave out "or."

Line 11, after "'association," insert "or other body."

Line 19, leave out "or."

Line 19, after "association," insert "or other body."

Line 32, leave out from "of," to "171," in line 33, and insert "paragraph (1) of Standing Order 163 (Presentation of bills) and Standing Orders."

Line 35, after "bills," insert "171A (Petitions against private bills)."

Standing Order 28, line 27, after "deposited," insert "in the Private Bill Office and."

Standing Order 32, line 14, leave out "fishery," and insert "river."

Standing Order 33, line 6, after "a," insert "river board or a."

Standing Order 42, line 5, after "any," insert "river board, board of conservators or."

Standing Order 43, line 9, leave out "fishery," and insert "river."

Standing Order 44, line 12, leave out "gas, or electricity."

Lines 24 and 25, leave out "gas, or electricity."

Standing Order 61, line 44, leave out "for," and insert "once in each of."

Standing Order 62 line 32, leave out from "no," to "be," in line 36, and insert "intimation shall."

Standing Order 65, line 47, leave out from "no," to the end of line 50, and insert "intimation shall."

Standing Order 111, line 20, leave out from "presented," to "and," in line 24 and insert "in accordance with Standing Order 171A (Petitions against private bills)."

Standing Order 126, line 3, after "petition," insert "presented in accordance with Standing Order 171A (Petitions against private bills)."

Line 3, leave out from "bill," to "and," in line 24.

Line 27, after "any," insert "amendment as proposed in the filled-up bill, or of any proposed additional provision or of any."

Line 29, leave out from "committee," to end of line 30.

Standing Order 214, line 43, at end, add "but he shall not give such notice until after the bill has been printed by order of this House."

Schedule to Appendix (A), column 1, leave out "taken," and insert "acquired [or used]."

SCHEDULE (B)—REPEAL OF STANDING ORDERS

Standing Order 94 (Locus standi of railway companies against certain provisions).

Standing Order 149 (Saving clause to be inserted in railway bills).

SCHEDULE (C)—NEW STANDING ORDER

Petitions against private bills

171A.—(1) Every petition against a private bill originating in this House to which paragraph (1) of Standing Order 163 (Presentation of bills) applies, and which is not a bill the examination of the petition for which has been adjourned until after the twentieth day of January, shall be presented on or before the thirtieth day of January; and every petition against any other private bill shall be presented not later than the tenth day after the first reading of the bill or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on or before the next day on which the House sits.

(2) This order shall not apply—

(a) to any petition presented against a bill after it has been reported from a committee; or
(b) to any petition against a personal bill; or
(c) to any petition in which the petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in a filled-up bill, or of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of a bill before a committee.

The purpose of these Amendments is mainly to improve the drafting: the proposed new Order comes within this


category, as it merely makes a more logical arrangement of part of an existing Order. There is one Amendment of substance which is of considerable importance. In the case of Bills which propose to alter local authority boundaries there has never been, by a curious omission, any requirement for the promoters to deposit in this House copies of maps showing boundary changes. The Amendment to Standing Order No. 28 remedies this defect and is thus of interest to Members who may have constituency interests in local boundary Bills.

I also suggest that the House repeal two Standing Orders because they are obsolete.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Mine Workers (Call-Up)

Commander Donaldson: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds it was decided that mine workers should be exempt from military service whereas many grades of agricultural workers are subject to compulsory call-up.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Underground coal mine workers could not in present circumstances we called up without serious effects on coal production. In agriculture, however, it has been possible to call up a proportion of the young men reaching age 18 without any serious effect on food production. The deferment arrangements safeguard these cases where a serious loss of food production might result.

Commander Donaldson: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, may I ask him to bear in mind the serious concern felt in the agricultural community about these young men who have been called up? Will he be watchful of their re-employment on their release from the Services so that we may see how the call-up is affecting depopulation in the more distant areas?

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly bear in mind their re-employment on their return, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, but I would point out that it is

important that the agricultural community should make a contribution to the call-up. Out of an employed population of 600,000, the call-up accounts for only about 8,000.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this decision is causing a great deal of annoyance among the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, who are asking those who represent agricultural constituencies to put this point of view before him? Is it not just as necessary for the agricultural workers to produce the food to feed the miners, otherwise the miners will not be able to increase coal production?

Sir W. Monckton: It is quite true that the production of food is of very great importance. It is for that reason that deferment is granted in cases where there would be a serious loss.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in a case over which I have communicated to him, as a result of the decision taken the widow concerned has now decided to sell her stock, with consequent loss of food and possible unemployment for the men?

Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, although I did not know until now of the action which the lady intends to take. I can only say that the case was most anxiously considered in accordance with deferment arrangements.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the persistently unsatisfactory nature of these replies, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Medical Boards (Investigation)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the number of complaints of errors in call up for National Service, he will institute a full inquiry into the records kept in his Department and the results of medical boards, to ensure there is no possibility of errors in records.

Sir W. Monckton: As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) last Thursday, I am myself looking into the arrangements for call up in relation to recent complaints alleging the call-up of unfit men and I will certainly see that the point raised by the hon. Member is covered.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister also let the House know whether there is any truth in the suggestion that new regulations, or new instructions, have been issued that medical boards must not turn down more than a certain percentage of men in each of the categories?

Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity of saying that no such instructions have been given.

Mr. Bowles: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider a letter, if I send it to him, from a man in my constituency who volunteered for the R.A.F., was examined by a civilian medical board and passed as fit, also passed by a specialist, and went into the R.A.F. but was rejected as unfit the next day? He was called up in April this year and the same thing happened again; he was called up and was rejected the same night. This has now happened twice in four months to the same young man. It is very upsetting from the point of view of his civil employment and loss of clothing and other things which he had sold, such as his bicycle.

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly look into the case if the hon. Member will send me details. I would take the opportunity of pointing out that it sometimes happens, necessarily, that a man rightly passed as fit for service goes to a particular Service which requires a different standard from the other Services. For instance, the R.A.F., for some purposes, want a different standard.

Mr. Marquand: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in close touch with the Minister of Pensions on this matter and ask him whether he has any records of numbers of young men discharged from the Forces who apply for a pension but fail to get it on the ground that they were unfit when they were called up?

Sir W. Monckton: The hon. Member has drawn my attention to a matter with which I shall have to deal on a later Question. I do get the co-operation of the Services and the Ministry of Pensions in looking into what I might call early reject cases, which, I think, cover the cases the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Gower: Is there a close liaison between the Ministry of Labour and the

Service Departments in marginal cases? Where there is the least doubt in the minds of doctors, do they get in touch with the Service concerned and the medical examiners there?

Sir W. Monckton: It is rather the other way round. There is medical examination by civilian doctors for the Ministry of Labour and, thereafter, as soon as the man gets into the Service-it varies between a fortnight and three months, or something of that sort—he is examined again by a Service doctor with all the results of my Ministry's examination before him. It is rather they who might consult us than we who consult them.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour if he will hold an inquiry into the present medical board system operated by his Department in order to restore public confidence in this important Government machinery concerned with recruitment to the Armed Services.

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Labour if he will institute a Departmental inquiry into the operations of the medical examination boards for National Service men, which are the responsibility of his Department.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. I am now engaged on the consultations with chairmen of medical boards, to which I referred in my answer to a supplementary question by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on 16th July. I have already arranged for the boards to be reminded of the importance of making a full inquiry into the candidate's medical history and of paying full attention to consultants' reports. I am also amending the forms sent with the summonses to medical examination so as to draw attention to the fact that medical certificates or reports brought to the examination will be fully considered.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already started personal visits to medical boards. I propose to do the same after the House rises.
I think that the most fruitful course will be to complete the steps which are already in hand and the examination of the individual cases brought to my notice. I also propose to make a further investigation, with the co-operation of the Services and the Ministry of Pensions, into


all cases of men discharged, during a recent period, shortly after entry with a view to determining the present extent of error and whether it appears to arise most commonly in certain types of cases or districts.

Mr. Dodds: I am sure that almost everyone will appreciate what the Minister has said, but does he appreciate that the statement he made last week, in view of all the evidence available, was considered to be not good enough to meet the present situation? What he has said today will go further, but there will be a lot of interest in medical boards when the House reassembles.

Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said. I am anxious to do all I can to probe this matter because, although it is easy to say that the cases which come to my notice against the quarter of a million examined in a year are few, while there is one case I should like to track it down.

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw the attention of his officials who may be investigating and advising him on the matter that a very high proportion of the men rejected by the Service Departments after being taken in are psychiatric cases and that it might well be a good thing to look into the question of having psychiatrists in attendance on local medical boards?

Sir W. Monckton: I will certanly bear that in mind. The hon. Member is quite right; about half the rejected cases are psychiatric cases.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will include in the call-up notice a statement that certificates from private doctors submitted on reporting for medical examination will be taken into consideration by the medical board.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are already in hand for this to be done.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether these revised call-up notices, including the suggestion contained in the Question, are to be put into use immediately?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, they are. It is a matter of getting them printed and sent out. The amendment made is in these terms:
The Medical Board will give careful consideration to any medical evidence which you may bring with you regarding any illnesses or disabilities from which you have suffered.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister place on the board an obligation to call for the medical history of the man?

Sir W. Monckton: The first doctor who does this examination has the task assigned to him of getting from the man all the particulars he can about his medical history. The difficulty is that we cannot get copies of medical documents of each man unless he brings them; there are no other sources from which to get them. We are making careful inquiries, and the effect of the suggestion, which the hon. and gallant Member put into his Question, will be that the man, before coming, will be encouraged to bring with him the documents which the board should see.

Medical Examinations (Personal Cases)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour which medical boards are responsible for having approved the call up of John Campfield, 163, Crayford Way, Crayford, Kent, and Kenneth Davis, 31, Cedar Road, Slade Green, Kent, for Army service; and what are the names and ages of the members of each board.

Sir W. Monckton: John Campfield was examined by Lewisham No. 1 Medical Board and Kenneth Davis by Lewisham No. 2 Medical Board. Each of these boards is composed of five members drawn from panels of 11 and 13 practitioners respectively. I am not prepared to disclose the personal particulars requested of the members who examined the two men in question.

Mr. Dodds: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman see in the medical Press a fortnight ago an opinion that the ages of many people on the boards are too high, so that they are not able to do their job as well as they might?

Sir W. Monckton: I have not seen that, but the question of the age of members of the board is one we have constantly under review. As I said last week, they are not appointed after the age of 65,


but many doctors of 70 and over do the job extremely well. Moreover, it is very hard to get people in regular practice to do this job.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour what medical grade was given by his appropriate medical board in the case of Kenneth Davis, 31, Cedar Road, Slade Green, prior to his being allocated to the Army.

Sir W. Monckton: Grade I.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Minister really think that a man who has a history of rheumatic fever, and who went in with such a degree of flat feet that the War Office sent him out unfit for military service, was a satisfactory man to be placed in Grade I?

Sir W. Monckton: It is difficult to go through the exact details of every case, but I have looked at this one. I found, as to the rheumatic fever, that he had it when he was a boy aged 9 or 10, in 1944. He was referred by the board to a consultant cardiologist in case there had been some effect on the heart. The consultant said that the heart was quite normal. So far as flat feet are concerned, the man said nothing about that when he was examined and it was not until he was in the Army that it was eventually discovered. That was not the cause of his discharge. He was discharged because of the infection of osteo-arthritis.

Mr. Dodds: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible, as it is difficult to deal with it by Question and answer.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now investigated the position relating to the calling up of Kenneth Wright, Leicester; and if he will make a statement thereon.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. At his first National Service medical examination in October, 1952, this man informed the board that he had never suffered from tuberculosis and a mass miniature radiography examination of his chest revealed nothing abnormal. About a month later, he volunteered for the Royal Air Force, but was not accepted because an X-ray photograph of his chest showed shadows which were interpreted as indicating inactive tuberculosis.
The National Service medical board has twice since consulted the Leicester Chest Clinic about him and, before placing him in Medical Grade I in June, 1953, had ascertained from the clinic that there was no evidence of active tuberculosis and that if, on re-examination in nine months' time, his condition remained unchanged, he would be discharged from the clinic. As far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence of how long ago this man had tuberculosis. This is, however, a borderline case and I have decided to cancel his enlistment notice and he will not be called up for service.

Mr. Janner: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the reply which he has given in respect of the cancellation, may I ask him whether he will take care, when a man comes forward in future to see that if he states that he has been under doctor's treatment, as this man did, and say that he has been discharged, the inquiry form to which the Minister referred in his reply to me a few days ago will be sent to his doctor, because it was not sent in this case? Will the Minister also inquire into another case of a similar nature which occurred in Leicester a few days ago?

Sir W. Monckton: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case, I certainly will. I think that I have dealt with the first part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a further statement on the medical grading and enlistment of Mr. Peter Frostick, Maldon. Essex.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are in hand for Mr. Frostick's medical re-examination and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the report is available. Meantime, no action is being taken to call Mr. Frostick for service.

Mr. Driberg: While I accept the apology and explanation for the recent error in the previous answer sent to me privately by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that it is very disturbing that a mistake of that kind can occur in this kind of case in view of all the other recent individual cases of error there have been?

Sir W. Monckton: I hope I have shown the House and the hon. Member that I am alive to this and am doing my best to correct it.

Agricultural Contractors (Call-Up)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange that the same conditions of calling up for National Service shall apply to workers for agricultural contractors as apply to agricultural workers.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The deferment arrangements are based on the contribution made by the particular worker to the production of food at an individual farm, and it would be impossible to apply this principle to men working for agricultural contractors.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister bear in mind that contractors' labourers, although they are not actually permanent farm workers, are doing extremely important work and that there are cases, some of them in my constituency, in which difficulties have been caused in the middle of haymaking by the fact that they have been called up?

Sir W. Monckton: I am always anxious to do what I can to assist in this matter, but agricultural contractors cannot be fitted into this deferment arrangement, much as I regret it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Load-Spreading

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to safeguard continuity of industrial production during the forthcoming winter, in view of the renewed danger of power cuts arising from shortage of house coal causing householders to resort, promiscuously, to the use of electric fires and electric water heaters during peak hours; and whether he will arrange a 20 per cent. industrial load-spread, as in 1950 and 1951.

Sir W. Monckton: The Electricity sub-Committee of the Joint Consultative Committee has been considering the arrangements that will be required in regard to spreading the electricity load

next winter. Its report will be published next week.
After reviewing the prospects in the various regions and taking account of the welcome improvement in the supply position, the sub-Committee recommended that no national load-spreading target should be set, but that regional boards for industry should have discretion to make load-spreading arrangements in the light of conditions likely to arise in their respective areas. It is also recommended that all possible encouragement should continue to be given to the use of private generating plant and that domestic and small commercial consumers should again be asked to exercise maximum economy during the hours of peak load.
The Government have accepted the recommendations and regional boards will, as in previous years, be responsible for working out detailed arrangements. I would like again to thank both sides of industry for their continued assistance in this matter.

Mr. Nabarro: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that very comprehensive answer, may I ask him whether, when this report is published next week, he will consider drawing the attention of both sides of industry urgently to the grave shortage of house coal which is likely to confront us next winter, with the consequent special call on the use of electricity for domestic purposes which may—as not in previous years—create rather unusual demands at peak hours and interfere thereby with industrial production?

Sir W. Monckton: I raised the point to which my hon. Friend has referred at the meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council yesterday, and both sides of industry have it very much in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a contribution could be made to this problem if unemployed workers in the Falkirk and Stirlingshire area could be put to work to produce more fuel-saving appliances? There is great redundancy and unemployment there and these are the very appliances which could enable householders to use less coal during the winter.

Sir W. Monckton: I will look into that point.

Older Persons (Pension Schemes)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that potential labour is lost to employers due to insurance companies refusing to insure the over 40 age groups; and if he will institute an inquiry to discover how this obstacle can be overcome.

Sir W. Monckton: The effect of pension schemes on the employment of older persons is already under consideration by the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women. which will shortly submit their First Report to me. The Report will be published in the autumn.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is not the assumption in this Question, that insurance companies can interfere in the contract of service, erroneous? The employer has a right to take on people who are over the age stipulated in insurance contracts and can exercise the right regardless of anything in the contract?

Sir W. Monckton: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is difficulty in relation to employing older people because of the difficulties of pension schemes and I think the hon. Lady had that in mind in putting down the Question, if I do not misinterpret her.

Industrial Dispute, Park Royal

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make regarding the industrial dispute at the Medical Supply Association, Park Royal, N.W.10.

Sir W. Monckton: The observations of the firm on the complaint that they are not observing the fair wages clause have now been referred to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in accordance with normal practice, and I am arranging for my officers to approach the parties again.

Mr. Robinson: Do I gather from that that there has been no progress in the settlement of this industrial dispute? Is the Minister aware that this firm is now advertising for non-union labour and that up to last week-end 22 non-union men had been engaged, some through the facilities of the Minister's Department?

Will the Minister do what he can to try to prevent this firm behaving in this stupid and prehistoric manner?

Sir W. Monckton: I understand that in their observations to my right hon. Friend they have denied that they are breaking the fair wages clause. That is the very point where we can come in and see what the position is, and my regional industrial officer is now engaged on that task.

Ex-Tuberculous Persons

Sir F. Messer: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the difficulty which tuberculosis after-care committees are experiencing in their efforts to find employment for ex-tuberculosis patients even when such people are negative and free from infection; and what proposals he has to make to deal with the position.

Sir W. Monckton: I know there is difficulty but the disablement resettlement officers at the exchanges are achieving considerable success, in conjunction with employers, and under medical advice, in placing ex-tuberculous persons in employment suitable to them. They will continue to strive to improve the position and to overcome the obstacles, one of which is the common fear of infection on the part of fellow-workers. For those in need of employment under special conditions some provision is made by Remploy factories, and in workshops provided by local authorities or voluntary bodies.

Sir F. Messer: Is the Minister aware that it is, of course, lay prejudice which is responsible for the difficulty, and will he use his influence with the B.B.C. to permit broadcasts to take place so that workers can be educated as well as employers?

Sir W. Monckton: I shall be very glad of any assistance of that kind, if it comes.

COST OF LIVING (INCREASES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what factors have caused the recent rise in the cost-of-living index.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Willey.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Before this Question is answered, may I ask, as this explanation is always given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, why this Question was admitted to the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The Question asks for the factors which
have caused the recent rise in the cost-of-living index.
That is rather a separate matter.

Sir H. Williams: But the monthly edition of the Ministry of Labour Gazette contains this information and a paragraph is given explaining the reasons for the change. That is available to hon. Members in the Library.

Sir W. Monckton: The rise of one point in the Interim Index of Retail Prices between May and June was due mainly to increases in the prices of cooking apples, oranges, corned beef, tea and fish, which were partly offset by lower prices for some vegetables and for eggs. There were also, in some areas, increases in the prices of coal, increases in the average charges for electricity and gas, and increased bus fares. Some of these changes between May and June were seasonal.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister bring this report to the notice of the Minister of Food, because he seems to have a blind spot about tea?

Sir W. Moncktou: I constantly bring these matters to the attention of my colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Surgical Facilities, Kingston-upon-Hull

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the extension to Sutton Annexe, Kingston-upon-Hull, although generally designed for surgical cases, contains no operating theatre or accommodation for nursing staff, and that, as a consequence, the extension has now been designated for medical and children's cases for which there is no waiting list while surgical cases for which there is a long waiting list cannot be dealt with; and what steps he is taking to provide the necessary surgical facilities.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Regional Hospital Board are considering temporarily allocating these beds for medical cases until they can provide an additional operating theatre. This and the nurses' accommodation will be provided as soon as details are settled and the work can be fitted into the Board's capital programme. Some of the new beds will be used for children because of the present deficiency of children's beds in the area.

Childbirth (Analgesia)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of complaints that large number of mothers are not receiving analgesia, or anaesthesia in childbirth; and what steps he is taking to see that these benefits are fully enjoyed by all who desire and require them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): While my right hon. Friend has seen a number of allegations about inadequate provision of anaesthesia or analgesia, he has had only two complaints from mothers in the last two years. In areas where the administration of gas and air by midwives is below average the local health authorities are aware of the position, and as the hon. Member will know, the proportion of such administrations is steadily increasing from year to year.

Mrs. Mann: Does the hon. Lady know how many mothers in Britain are not receiving analgesia in childbirth?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Without notice I certainly could not give the hon. Lady that information, but she is aware that the availability is increasing; and the allegations far exceed any evidence which we have that mothers are being denied it when they wish it. They do not all wish it.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the reply given to me last week she specifically stated that there was no knowledge of how many mothers were not having analgesia in childbirth? Is it not astonishing, considering the party propaganda which went on during the régime of the last Government on this particular subject, that we should now


be told that no information is available? Does the President of the Board of Trade know about it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the hon. Lady is exaggerating the information she has been given in answer to various Questions. The figures she has been given concern gas and air administered by midwives. They do not take into effect alternative methods provided by doctors, so that it is not possible to give conclusive figures.

Walsall Health Executive Council (Chairman)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the recent resignation of the chairman of the Walsall Health Executive Council.

Mr. W. Wells: asked the Minister of Health whether he is acquainted with the circumstances of the resignation of Alderman John Whiston from the Walsall Health Executive Council; and whether he will order an inquiry.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The resignation was the personal decision of the chairman. The matter is primarily one for the Executive Council and it is hardly for my right hon. Friend to make any statement on it, neither does he think an inquiry is called for.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Lady aware that that can only be considered as a most unsatisfactory answer? On this Executive Council the medical profession had voting power at this time and the doctor personally concerned voted in his own defence. How can the hon. Lady defend those sort of "goings-on"—if I may use that term—in a committee for which she is responsible?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not defending anything in my reply. The former chairman resigned before this election. The remedy as to who the Executive Council wish as their chairman lies entirely in the hands of the Executive Council. Under the 1949 Act they choose their own chairman. I am sure the House would regard it as a retrograde step if my right hon. Friend interfered with that free selection. If there is any criticism, it lies with the eight local authority members who were not there on this occasion to vote. They had ample

notice of the meeting and if they felt that the matter was of sufficient importance they could have had an alternative date in order that they might be there.

Mr. Wells: Does not the hon. Lady consider that this matter raises a question of general principle? Is she aware that members of local authorities may have overriding obligations which prevent their attendance on a particular day? Does not she think it wrong that the professional members of this body should be in a position to override the nonprofessional members in a matter of this sort?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is not a case of overriding the non-professional members. The Act which, after all, was instigated by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power, lays down a membership of 25. Of that 25 members, 12 are professional, five are appointed by the Minister and eight by the local health authority. If the local health authority members thought it important that they should be present to choose their chairman they could have asked for an alternative date.

Mr. W. Wells: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Walsall Health Executive Council, held on 21st April last, one of the professional members of the Council voted on a question arising out of a complaint against himself; and what action he proposes to take.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The matter is one for consideration by the Executive Council.

Mr. Wells: Is not the hon. Lady aware that this Question refers to the same meeting as that referred to in Questions Nos. 23 and 30? Does she not consider it grossly unethical that a professional member of the Council should vote on a matter in which he was personally interested? Does not she agree that such a vote vitiates the whole decision reached by the meeting, and is not it the duty of the Minister of Health in these circumstances to ask the Council to reconsider the subject matter of that meeting without any interested parties voting?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have great sympathy with the point of view of the


hon. Member, on which he has exchanged correspondence with me, but he will be aware that there are some matters governed strictly by regulation and others which are matters of practice. For instance, in this House a Member declares his interest. He is not bound to do it, but he does it in accordance with the tradition of the House. A similar point arises here. Subject to any points covered by regulation, the procedure—including the voting procedure—of executive councils is for them to decide for themselves and to determine by their standing orders or otherwise. So far as appears from the reports of this meeting it did not conflict with their regulations.

Piped Water Supply (Fluoridation)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for further investigations in the fluoridation of piped water supplies in selected areas in Britain, in view of the report of the United Kingdom Mission to the United States of America and Canada.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is carefully studying the Mission's report. It is still too early to make a statement.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the fact that this matter has already been considered for a long time, and there have been a number of investigations in this country, may we hope for an earlier decision?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is a far-reaching and important decision to arrive at. The report was not published until 9th July and that evidence must be fully considered before my right hon. Friend makes a statement.

Mr. Wade: Would the hon. Lady agree that in most cases the users of a private water supply have no other source of supply, and that if they object to chlorination their only alternative is to do without? Would she agree that a heavy responsibility rests on the authority supplying the water to be satisfied that this process is not in any way harmful and that the objections are not justified?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is one of the points which must be taken into account.

Hearing Aids, Wales and S.E. Durham

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been achieved in dealing with the applications of people in Wales in need of ordinary hearing aids and bone-conducting hearing aids, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Up to 30th June last, 20,591 patients had been fitted with air-conduction and 216 with bone-conduction aids. The waiting lists were then 1,348 and 132 respectively compared with a total waiting list of 2,442 six months earlier.

Mr. Gower: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask when he anticipates that the others may be sent out?

Mr. Macleod: I expect to get rid of the waiting list altogether in about nine months.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health how many applications for hearing aids have been transferred from Sunderland to Middlesbrough; the number outstanding at the latter centre; and the average waiting time.

Mr. Iain Macleod: One thousand and ninety-eight applications have been transferred from Sunderland, and 349 have come from other hospitals. 1,061 were outstanding on 18th July. Those now being supplied have been waiting since November, 1951, but it is hoped to clear all outstanding applications within nine months.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say how long this waiting time is compared with other parts of the country?

Mr. Macleod: It is difficult to give an accurate figure because the station at Middlesbrough, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has just been opened, but I am informed that its rate of issue is slightly above the national average.

Specialist Appointments, Newcastle

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health the number of full and part-time specialist appointments made by the


Newcastle Regional Hospital Board during each of the years 1949,1950,1951, 1952 and during the six months ended 30th June, 1953; and by how many the specialist hospital staff in this region have increased in each of these years.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the available information on the second part.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the developments in the last two years have not been far greater than in the two years preceding the take-over by the present Government; and is it not highly misleading to give the sort of answer which he gave to Questions on this matter asked last week? Should not such misleading answers be left to his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward)?

Mr. Macleod: There was nothing misleading about it. The reply I gave arose out of a supplementary question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), which was on

Date
Whole-time
Part-time


Number at date in Col. (1) (whole-time equivalents of service given to Board)* 
Increase (+) or decrease (−) over previous figures
Number of appointments at date in Column (1)†
Increase (+) or decrease (−) in number of appointments over previous figure


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


31.12.1949
…
Comparable figures
not available.




1.12.1950
…
104
—
684
—


31.12.1951
…
169
+65
750 (excluding 8 honorary appointments)
+66


31.12.1952
…
154
−15
791 (excluding 4 honorary appointments)
+41


31. 3.1953
…
152
−2
Not available
—


30. 6.1953
…
Comparable figures
not yet available
Not available
—


* These figures represent in terms of whole-time equivalents the amount of service given to the Board by consultants and senior hospital medical and dental officers who are whole-time in the National Health Service. Some whole-time specialists may give part of their time to the Board of Governors.


† These figures show the number of separate part-time appointments existing at the various dates—not the number of persons holding them.

the far wider question of capital expenditure and not on the narrow issue of specialist appointments.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the Minister agree that in both the capital expenditure and the appointment of specialist staff in a Newcastle area there has been no development of the character he described?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) why it was that when the hon. Member was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in the Labour Government we could not get a fair allocation of capital expenditure for our region when other regions were getting more than we were and we were being defrauded of the money we ought to have had?

Mr. Macleod: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a question for the Minister.

Following is the table:

Health Service Charges

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Health whether he will present a White Paper reviewing the effects of the charges for appliances and treatment in the hospital and general practitioners services imposed in 1951 and 1952.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. I think that this information can best be given by Parliamentary Question and answer.

Mr. Marquand: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in view of the resolution passed by the British Medical Association it would be better to give Parliament an opportunity to judge the effect of these charges, and that a factual statement put before us during the Recess would be of great assistance to us in making up our minds? Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Dr. A. J. Macleod, when the resolution was passed by the British Medical Association, to the effect that a recent speech by the Minister of Health suggested that he was anything but confident about the Is, charge? Are we not entitled to more information about that?

Mr. Macleod: On the first point, I should have thought that clearly it was better that a matter that can be put to me for Oral answer once a week and Written answer every day would enable far more information to be given to the House than the publication of a White Paper which would be out of date within a week of its issue and would have to be constantly brought up to date. On the observation made at the annual meeting, I am delighted to see this additional proof of the slow conversion of the Opposition to the point of view of those called Macleod, who come from the Western Isles.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most important that the House should have the fullest information about the effect of these charges? Does he not recognise that the House welcomes the conversion of the British Medical Association to the point of view expressed always from this side?

Wolverhampton Hospital (House Posts)

Mr. Nally: asked the Minister of Health what advice he has given, or what assistance he proposes to render to, the

Wolverhampton Hospital Management Committe who, as a consequence of being unable to fill house posts in the Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton, have been compelled to circularise all industrial first aid posts in their area asking them to avoid sending patients other than urgent cases to this hospital.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am having inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member. I am afraid that the shortage of junior medical staff in hospitals is general in the region.

Mr. Nally: While realising that the Minister cannot possibly have concluded his inquiries yet, may I ask him whether he would agree that it is an extremely serious situation in a heavy industrial district of this kind when industrial first-aid posts are asked to undertake the obligation of deciding whether or not cases are serious? Does not he agree that this is disconcerting, and will not he do his best to speed up the inquiry and, if necessary, give help to the Wolverhampton Hospital Management Committee in its admittedly difficult task?

Mr. Macleod: The letter that the hon. Member refers to was sent only to firms that are known to have staffed first-aid posts, usually with medical assistance as well. I should have thought that it was useful for them to know the difficult position which exists at the Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton. I will try to see if there are local circumstances which make it easier for myself or the regional hospital board to help in this matter.

Mental Hospitals (Nursing)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health to what professional organisations was the memorandum on supply of nursing staff for mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions submited before issue.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The memorandum was based on a study of the recommendations made by the Minister of Labour's National Advisory Council on the Recruitment of Nurses and Midwives and my Standing Mental Advisory Committee and Standing Nursing Advisory Committee. As the views of all the professional organisations concerned are fully represented on these advisory bodies, it was


not considered necessary to refer the memorandum to the organisations before issue.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that some anxiety has been caused by the issue of this memorandum, especially because it is felt that it may reduce the standard—or suggest an encouragement of the reduction of the standard—of mental hospitals when, if anything, we need to improve and not reduce it?

Mr. Macleod: That was the last thing that was in the minds of the very distinguished members of this Committee, and the last thing, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, that was in my mind.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this occasion I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)? Will he bear in mind that this is a matter of principle, that the principle of consultation is a very wise one, and that in future we hope it will be followed more by his Department?

Mr. Macleod: On the issue of consultation, which is a slightly different one, all these bodies—and there are scores of them—are represented, either by nominees or by consultation, on the three bodies to which I have referred. It is surely unnecessary after that to refer a document giving advice to all the professional organisations concerned.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health how many members of the General Nursing Council have had experience of mental nursing or mental hospital administration.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Two members of the Council have had mental nursing experience and four have had experience of mental hospital administration. In addition, five members of the statutory Mental Nurses' Committee of the Council have had mental nursing experience and one has had experience in mental hospital administration.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that the nursing situation in mental hospitals is deteriorating and may soon be quite critical, and that the General Nursing Council, who could do so much to help in this matter, seem to be unaware of the urgency of the problem? Is

the hon. Lady satisfied that this is an adequate representation of the mental health field and, if not, will she ask her right hon. Friend to do something to increase it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little unjust to the G.N.C. They are aware of the gravity of the problem. They are certainly being pressed by my right hon. Friend to find all possible methods to solve it.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the hon. Lady consult representatives of the Ministry on the General Nursing Council, because it is becoming the opinion of hospital management committees that the suggested alterations in the regulations for the recruitment of nurses that are being pressed by the General Nursing Council are having a serious effect upon the recruitment of nurses?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Children Under Five (Free Milk)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Education what steps she proposes to take to see that children of five years of age and over for whom school places are not available receive the supply of free milk which would be available to them if they were attending school.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): Local education authorities have no power to provide milk for children who are not in attendance at school.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Lady realise that in addition to the injustice of not being able to receive education, these children are denied other benefits? Does she not know that the children of some families in poor circumstances would get free dinners if school places were available for them? Does she really think that the complacent answer she has given is satisfactory, in view of the urgency of the matter?

Miss Horsbrugh: The next Question on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Gentleman, deals with the number of children unable to attend school because places are not available.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that it would be possible for her to give


the necessary powers to local authorities to deal with these children, and that the number of children concerned is not as important as the principle—or no more important?

Miss Horsbrugh: Local authorities have no power if the children are not at school. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would need legislation.

Infants (School Places)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Education how many children of five years of age and over are unable to attend school because places are not available for them.

Miss Horsbrugh: I know of about 660 such children whose admission to school has been postponed until next term.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does that mean that the right hon. Lady can give an assurance that after next term there will be no children of five years of age for whom school places are not available?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can, I think, give the assurance that this number of children, who are not being taken into school until the beginning of the term after they become five, will be admitted. I cannot say definitely whether there will be others next term who will have to wait until the term after they are five.

School Building, Eton and Slough

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware that 59 classes in infants' schools in Slough and Eton have between 40 and 44 children, that 14 have between 45 and 49 children, and that one has a class of over 50 children; that 55 classes in junior schools have between 40 and 44 children and 11 between 45 and 49 children; that 10 classes in senior schools have between 40 and 44 children; and if the building of the new schools planned for Slough and Eton can be expedited to meet this overcrowding.

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. I recognise the importance of completing quickly new schools in this area, and I shall continue to give the authority all possible help in carrying through the substantial school building programmes that I have authorised.

Mr. Brockway: While expressing appreciation of the promised programme for Slough, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady will look into the question at Eton, where, among the children of ordinary residents, there is the worst case of overcrowding? Can she give an assurance that schools will be available for the children who are coming with the 17,000 people to the London County Council estates?

Miss Horsbrugh: I quite agree that the biggest problem is that of the London County Council estates, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that seven new schools or extensions of schools have been completed since March, 1950, three are under construction, three are to be started during the present programme year, and six have been included in the local authority's programme for 1954.

Children, Hopwas (Tamworth Schools)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Education if she is satisfied with the arrangements for getting Hopwas, Staf-fordshire, schoolchildren to their Tam worth schools.

Miss Horsbrugh: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the arrangements to be introduced next term. I have no reason to think that they will not be satisfactory.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Lady aware that public opinion is coming to the conclusion that not only distance, but the incidence of traffic on the roads, should be considered in this matter? Many parents are acutely anxious about their children travelling on roads on which the traffic factor constitutes a very great danger.

Miss Horsbrugh: That is taken into consideration by the local authorities for any exceptional cases, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a public bus service between Hopwas and Tamworth, and that parents are at liberty to pay their children's fares if they wish to do so.

School Non-Attendance (Prosecutions)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Education how many parents and guardians have been prosecuted during


the last 18 months for failing to send their children to school.

Miss Horsbrugh: Local education authorities are responsible for administering the law relating to school attendance, and I have no means of securing this information without asking all of them, which I should not consider justifiable.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Lady think it would be a good thing if it worked both ways, and that those who fail to provide places for children should be prosecuted equally with those who fail to send their children to school?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the entrance of children of five years into school, if he will look at the Act of 1948 he will see that they need not go into school during the term, but, if it would be more convenient, they can go in at the beginning of the term after they have reached the age of five.

Slum Schools (Repairs)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Education what advice she has now given to local education authorities about the rebuilding or improvement of slum schools.

Miss Horsbrugh: Authorities remain free to use for the improvement of old schools a substantial proportion of the resources allocated to them for carrying out minor capital works, but, under present conditions, I cannot authorise them to carry out major building projects designed to replace unsatisfactory premises.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister not aware that no real effort is being made by the Government at all in this matter, and that there should be a larger allocation for this purpose? How can she tolerate such conditions as exist when school rooms are described as "zoos" and school playgrounds as "squelching quagmires" or "dust baths"?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, but the best way of dealing with this, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, is to build more quickly more new schools, and that has been done in the last two years at a greater rate than ever before.

School Building, Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware of the over crowding in some of the schools in Bristol, and of the attempts being made by the education committee to remedy the position by building new schools; and why she objected to and turned down three of the schools which they planned in their programme for 1954–55.

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. I was unable to include these three schools in the authority's programme for 1954–55 because I was not satisfied that they were required to meet the minimum needs described in Circular 245. I am considering a request by the authority for the addition of one of these schools to the programme I have approved.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the education authority of Bristol is making a serious attempt to deal with a very difficult problem, that at her request they prepared plans for 1954–55 for nine new schools and that the Minister turned down 33 per cent. of that programme? As they regard this as a rebuff from the Minister, will she reconsider the whole of this matter?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am in communication with the authority, particularly concerning one of these schools, and I should like first to discuss that with the authority.

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the shortage of secondary school places in the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme, she will take action to assist the local education authority to complete the Bradwell Secondary Modern School more rapidly; and if she will cancel the postponement order on the Chesterton Secondary Modern School.

Miss Horsbrugh: The need to complete this school as quickly as possible is recognised. Shortages of bricks and of labour are delaying the building work, but my officers and those of the local education authority are doing their best to overcome these difficulties. I am now discussing with the authority what provision for Chesterton should be made in the 1954–55 building programme.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the very overcrowded state of the existing secondary schools in New-castle-under-Lyme, of the excessive and wasteful travelling imposed on many children, and of the almost insuperable difficulty of reorganisation confronting the local education authority? Will she therefore reconsider her refusal to approve any project at all in Newcastle-under-Lyme in this financial year?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman the difficulty about the particular school which was started in 1951. I am told there have been difficulties about work on the foundations, but I am glad to think that the local authority is getting on more quickly with the school now. As for the school for Chesterton, I am discussing that proposition with the authority.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education her estimate of the rise in the secondary school population in the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme between 1946 and 1956; how many new secondary school places have been provided since 1946 and what action she is taking to ensure that there is an adequate number of secondary places for the children requiring them.

Miss Horsbrugh: The number of children aged 11 and over in maintained schools other than special schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme increased from 3,773 in January, 1946, to 5,009 in January, 1953, and the local education authority expect it to rise to about 5,500 by January, 1956. About 1,000 secondary school places have been provided since 1946, and 450 more are under construction. I shall include some secondary school provision in Newcastle-under-Lyme in the 1954–55 building programme, but I cannot say how much until discussions with the authority are completed.

Mr. Swingler: Can I take it as a definite undertaking from the Minister that at least two projects will be approved in Newcastle-under-Lyme in the next financial year?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have already stated that I am now in discussion with the local authority about this particular project.

Graduate Teachers

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Education what evidence she has to explain the causes for the decline in the intake of graduates into the teaching profession; and what steps she proposes to take in order to correct this position.

Miss Horsbrugh: There has been no such decline in recent years. In each of the last four years, there has been a net increase in the number of graduate teachers employed in grant-aided schools and establishments, with a greater increase in 1951–52 than in the three previous years.
I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) on 25th June last.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. Friend look at the intake into secondary schools? Does she not agree that there is a considerable shortage of graduates, particularly science and mathematics graduates, because the majority of such graduates are going into industry and not to the teaching profession?

Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly, we do want to get more graduates for science and mathematics, and I am glad to say that there has been an increase—not a decrease. I quite agree that the more we can attract these graduates to teaching the better, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in 1950–51 there was a net increase in the number of graduates of 1,400, and, in 1951–52, a net increase of 1,800

School Building, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Education why permission to build an infant and junior school at Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, and an infant and junior school at Braunstone Frith, Leicester, has been refused; and what alternative plans she has to provide the 580 and 820 places which were to be used at Mowmacre Hill and Braunstone Frith schools respectively.

Miss Horsbrugh: When the new school accommodation at present under construction or authorised has come into use, the authority will have at their disposal 4,000 more primary school places than at present. On present information, I consider that if use is made, so far as is


necessary, of the measures suggested in Circular 245, this accommodation should be sufficient to meet the estimated increase in the number of children and the needs of new housing estates.

Mr. Janner: That is not really an answer to the Question. May I ask the Minister why, when she approached the Leicester authorities to give her details of their requirements, she emphasised the particular importance of having schools in new housing areas? In view of that, why has she now refused permission to build them? Is she aware that there will be no places for these children if these schools are not provided?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am not aware that there will be no places for these children if the particular schools referred to are not provided. As I have said, there will be an extra 4,000 primary school places.

PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS (DURATION)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the possibility of shorter Parliamentary Sessions in order that Members of Parliament may have greater opportunities of earning a living outside politics and of feeling the effect of legislation enacted, as an alternative to increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): I fear that the calls on Parliamentary time tend to increase every year and make any appreciable reduction in the length of Parliamentary Sessions unlikely in the near future.

Mr. Osborne: Since it is obvious that Members of Parliament cannot pay their own expenses and live out of £1,000 a year gross, at what figure do the Government consider the salary should be if Members have to be full-time professional politicians?

Mr. Crookshank: This Question has nothing to do with salaries, but with Parliamentary time.

Mr. McLeavy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only directors, lawyers and journalists would be able to supplement their Parliamentary allowance in the way suggested by the Question? Does he believe that on purely financial

grounds Parliament should become the preserve of the wealthy and the professional classes?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hour is too late for a discussion on this matter now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business which it is proposed to take next week?

Mr. Crookshank: The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 27TH JULY—Motions relating to:

Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 p.m.

Draft British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.

International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Wheat Council) Order.

TUESDAY, 28TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report—

Debate on Traffic Congestion and Road Accidents until 7 o'clock.

Afterwards, a debate on Food Hygiene.

At 9.30 p.m. the Report stage of all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair.

We hope that it will be possible to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the School Crossing Patrols Bill [Lords], that is, of course, presuming it gets a Second Reading tomorrow, and the Licensing Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

Motion relating to:

Draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) Amendment Regulations.

WEDNESDAY, 29TH JULY—Second Reading: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Debate on Defence.

THURSDAY, 30TH JULY—Committee and Third Reading: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Debate on the Report of the Cotton Import (Review) Committee until 7 o'clock.

The subject of the debate for the second half of the day will be announced later.

As I informed the House last week, if all necessary Business can be completed, we hope to adjourn for the summer Recess on Friday, 31st July, until Tuesday, 20th October.

During the week we shall consider any Amendments to Bills which are received from another place, and any other necessary business will be brought forward.

Mr. Morrison: There are three points I wish to raise. First, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a Standing Order under which the House can be recalled during the Adjournment if necessary, and I presume that the Government would be willing to consider any representations which they might receive from the Opposition on the point.
The second point is that there is a Report from the Council of Wales on rural depopulation. I happen to have an interest in it, because I encouraged the inception of the inquiry as long ago as when I was Lord President of the Council. My hon. Friends from Wales, and, I think, others in the House, would very much like a debate on this important Report. Can the right hon. Gentleman provide facilities for such a debate at a reasonably early date? I appreciate that it cannot very well be before the summer Recess.
The third point is in connection with the very sad affair at Moston Hall and the subsequent court-martial, about which the Secretary of State for War made a statement which, I think, has not been wholly confirmed by the court-martial. Questions have been put down and Written answers have been received, but I think it would be more satisfactory to the outside people concerned, and to the Secretary of State for War himself, were he to be good enough to make a statement on the matter next week. I shall be grateful if the Leader of the House can arrange accordingly.

Mr. Crookshank: Standing Order No. 112 applies to this Government as to any other Government in regard to any neces-

sary recall of the House, which, we hope, will not arise. As to the point about a debate on the Report of the Council of Wales, I really must remind the right hon. Gentleman that his party have day after day within their control to allocate for this purpose and have not done so.

Mr. Morrison: A Government day.

Mr. Crookshank: It is all very well the right hon. Gentleman saying "a Government day." There has already been a Government day on Wales this Session, and that was all that was originally proposed. However, I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said, but if he really wanted his debate so urgently he could have arranged it. As to whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will make a statement on the matter referred to, I will call his attention to what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his last remark, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will make the statement. But, on the point about Wales, I think that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes gets slightly snappy when there is no need for him to do so. It is for the Opposition to safeguard its Supply Days as much as it can for its own purposes. It is not obligated to give a day on a matter when it is arguable that the Government should provide it. I would recall to the right hon. Gentleman that on at least one occasion we gave a special day out of Government time to debate a Report of the Council of Wales, in addition to the usual Welsh day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to consider the matter on its merits.

Mr. Crookshank: I thought I had made that clear in the final words I used, because I noted that the right hon. Gentleman afterwards said that it was arguable whether we should provide a day. However, I will not hold the right hon. Gentleman to that argument, but will take note of what he says and will see what can be done.

Mr. C. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Report has, apparently, been in the hands of the Government for some time and was only made available to hon. Members of the House last week? Further, does he


realise that this Report again calls attention to conditions in rural Wales which are not only serious, but really tragic? It is really necessary that we should have a full day to discuss that matter, quite apart from the other matters which concern the whole of Wales. We really ought to have two days.

Mr. Crookshank: I do not want anybody to be at cross-purposes about this. I quite recognise the importance of the White Paper and, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes, the tragedy of the situation, but it could have been possible to make some arrangement had it been all that urgent to discuss this Report before we rose for the Summer Recess. The opportunity has now passed, but I will sympathetically consider the representations which have been made to me. I cannot go further because, after all, next week's business is now settled.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the subjects for the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill were, in fact, selected by the Opposition, or are they, in effect, regarded as supplementary Supply Days? Could the rest of us have made representations as to what subjects we should like to have discussed, having regard to the fact that virtually everything is in order on the Second and Third Readings of that Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: It is the usual practice, going back many years, that these are Opposition days.

Mr. Beswick: Has the right hon. Gentleman paid any attention to the point which I raised last week about arrangements for ensuring that Questions addressed to the Minister of Civil Aviation shall be answered by the Minister of Transport after the Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: An answer will be made in due course if it can be done.

Sir I. Fraser: Out of these extra days, could we perhaps have two days to discuss England, and especially Lancashire, seeing that there are more Members in Lancashire than in either Scotland or Wales?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I understand that the Leader of the House is well informed on Parliamentary affairs and Parliamentary history. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If not, my information was wrong. I want

to ask for Mr. Speaker's protection on the points I am going to raise. There is a growing misuse of Parliamentary time with regard to the Consolidation Bill. In previous generations in this House, according to what I have read and according to my own pre-war experience, it used always to be the custom for the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidation Bill to be used for the purpose of remedying the immediate grievances of the people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member means the Consolidated Fund Bill, not the "Consolidation Bill."

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Sir.

An Hon. Member: You have had your protection.

Mr. Smith: It is quite apparent that some hon. Members do not remember when this country established its constitutional position, thanks to Mr. Speaker's defending the seven Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Five."] Yes, five. In its modern form, that is now at stake in what I am raising. Before the war, and on this Bill, the Government Front Bench used to be packed with Ministers waiting to take their turn to deal with grievances being raised from this side of the House, when this side represented—and intended to do—the great industrial areas as real Labour representatives. The result of that was that it gave great satisfaction throughout the country. I am asking Mr. Speaker to consider this practice. It has fallen into misuse during the war and it has never been restored. The time has arrived when it should be restored and when, on these Bills, Parliamentary time should be used for remedying the immediate grievances of the people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite correct in thinking that the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill have always been regarded as occasions on which any grievance can be raised, but grievances are so many—[Laughter] and have always been so many—that in the past Parliament has thought it better to concentrate on one or two of these particular grievances so that one or two matters might be thoroughly discussed instead of the whole of Parliament's time being spread very thinly over a whole number of unco-ordinated complaints. Therefore, the practice has grown up of the Opposition's selecting


subjects they wish to raise; but it is in order for any hon. Member to raise anything.

Mr. Smith: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there is more in this matter than appears on the surface. This country has developed to a situation where we are the most democratically developed country in the world, and it behoves us to safeguard that position. With respect to you, may I remind you that what you have said is quite true in regard to the normal Supply Days, but when it came to the end of the Session, and before a long Recess, it was always the practice, in pre-war times, for hon. Members on both sides of the House—which is a better way of putting it than I did previously—to raise immediate issues vitally affecting their divisions which they had not been able to raise on the normal Supply Days. What I am asking is that you, Sir, might consider this matter between now and next week so that when we raise it again, as it will be raised, you can give a reasoned reply to it.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member has said, but I think that what I said previously is correct.

Mr. Stokes: While I applaud what my hon. Friend has said, may I put this point. Surely it is the position that on the Consolidated Fund Bill anybody can go on talking about any grievance for as long as he likes and that neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor the Government, nor the Opposition can stop him.

Mr. Speaker: On the Consolidated Fund Bill any hon. Member can raise any subject for as long as he likes, or for as long as Standing Orders permit, and that is a long time. The only other limiting factor is the patience of the House.

Mr. Snow: On Tuesday's business, I understand that the first part is to be devoted to a debate in connection with road accidents. In view of the reply which the Minister of Education gave this afternoon about the use of public bus services for schoolchildren in the context of road accidents, and of the great public disquiet about the subject, would the Leader of the House consider extending

the time for this debate or suspending the Rule?

Mr. Crookshank: That is a matter for the usual channels. There was a suggestion made by the Opposition that this debate should be until 7 o'clock. I am entirely in their hands.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Leader of the House did not mention as part of the business for next week a discussion of the Report of the British Transport Commission, a request for which has been made to him on each of the Thursdays preceding. Are we to have a debate on that Report? The Report appeared about two months ago and by the time we return in October it will be 10 months out of date. Can we have an assurance that we can have a debate soon after the resumption?

Mr. Crookshank: I have already had some talks on this matter of the days to be devoted to discussion of the nationalised industries during the short part of the Session after we return. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait to see which days will be allocated for that purpose.

Mr. Osborne: As nothing has been decided yet about next Thursday's business after 7 o'clock, and the Opposition seem to be in difficulty, would the Leader of the House use his influence with the Leader of the Opposition in order that we can discuss the very important statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on exports and productivity to the Joint Advisory Council of Trade Unions and Employers?

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first four Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £27,850,321, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Traffic Congestion and Road Accidents for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:



£


Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Transport
1,718,000


Class IX, Vote 2, Roads, etc.
22,333,500


Class IX, Vote 8, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
3,798,821


Total
£27,850,321

—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £69,366,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Food Hygiene for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:



£


Class VIII, Vote 9, Ministry of Food
29,628,668


Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £302,314)
2,856,314


Class V. Vote 15, Department of Health for Scotland
1,581,510


Class VIII, Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of £15,999,990)
32,913,241


Class VIII, Vote 11, Department of Agriculture for Scotland
2,386,667


Total
£69,366,400

—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £207,781,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Added Days Procedure for Unemployment Benefit for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:


Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1953–54



£


Class V, Vote 10, National Insurance and Family Allowances (Revised Sum)
118,037,000


Class X, Vote 5, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
4,724,000


Class V, Vote 11, National Assistance Board
85,020,000


Total
£207,781,000

—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (ADDED DAYS)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: As the Committee will have seen from the Order Paper, we have asked that three Votes shall be put down for discussion today in order to have the widest possible debate on a subject, part of which was discussed on 6th July. Since then other events have taken place which make it necessary for us to return to that subject and also to an allied one.
The Committee will recall that on that occasion we were discussing the cessation of a Section in the National Insurance Act, 1946, the failure of the Government to continue it and the decision of the Government to add to the number of contractual days of unemployment benefit with the condition that on the expiry of those days anyone unemployed would be subject, if he wished to obtain it, to assistance from the Assistance Board. In other words, the provisions for extended benefit which had been maintained right through the period from the war to the present time were to come to an end.
I shall not discuss all the details that were discussed on 6th July, because it would be repetitive to do so; but, first of all, I want to ask the Minister of National Insurance one or two questions. Since the debate of 6th July we have had a document which is described as the "National Insurance Act, 1946: The Availability Question." I understand that this appeared at the Vote Office on 15th July. It was signed, however, on 16th April. I want to know from the Government how it comes about that a document which was relevant to a good deal of the discussion on 6th July was held back from the House of Commons until the Government had got that discussion over and why only when the debate was safely out of the way this highly controversial Report was produced. Why the delay in presenting it from 16th April until 15tb July?
It seems to us that the Government are now mobilising their attack on working-class standards like a carefully organised battle. From one direction after another inroads are being made into what has been described as the Welfare State, and I am bound to say they are made with extraordinary skill. The attack has been developed in two Budgets and in a


number of Bills from the Minister of Health, which have become Acts of Parliament; it has been further developed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and it is now being added to by a carefully organised attack upon the standards of the unemployed. I think that just now it will be necessary for the Opposition to review the whole of the Government's strategy in respect of the attack which they are now making on the working-class standard of life in many ways.
It would have been very convenient for us, certainly for my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), if on 6th July he had had this document before him, because then it would have been possible for him to point out that, so far from the Government, as they said on that occasion, following his example, they are now proposing to undermine one of the most important protections that unemployed people have got. I do not apologise for speaking on this matter because it is one with which I can claim a great deal of familiarity. Between 1931 and 1936 I made what might almost be described as an obscene number of speeches on this subject.
In 1930 we had a very interesting debate in the House of Commons on a subject which had caused more bitterness, more rancour and more political disturbance than any other subject that I ever remember. It was called, "Not genuinely seeking work." In the course of the discussion in the House this subject was raised. The authorities then advising the Government on unemployment benefit and unemployment policy generally had professed themselves quite unable to find any formula which would protect the national finances and at the same time not inflict some hardship on unemployed people.
They said—and they insisted upon it—that if a person claimed unemployment benefit he should prove that he was not able to obtain work. It seemed, on the face of it, an extremely sensible, simple and just proposition. When, however, it was converted into practice it meant torment and harassment of the most terrible description. As I pointed out in that debate, it meant, for example, that 10,000 people could be deprived of un-

employment benefit because of the existence of one vacancy, for if 9,999 people did not show that they had applied for that job all of them could be, and were, deprived of the benefit and they had no appeal at all.
As we know, unemployed people, of course, had to face humiliating ordeals in giving illustrations, dates and examples of where they had been looking for work. I confess quite frankly that those of us who went to the courts of referees at that time to try to protect working-class people from quite abominable conditions used to give them lessons in prevarication, and we had organised lying on a vast scale.
Even these sordid conditions are not always unaccompanied by some humorous incidents. I remember going one day to the court of referees on behalf of a number of people, and a man came to me and asked if I would represent him. I said, "Certainly." He said, "I am applying for benefit but I am starting to work next Monday." I said, "Very good, you will be all right." But I added rather wickedly, "Don't tell the chairman at first that you are." The chairman asked him, "Where were you a fortnight ago when you were looking for work?" He said, "Pochim"—that is the name of a colliery. The chairman asked, "Where were you the following day?" He replied, "Pochim." The chairman asked the same question in respect of each day of the fortnight and received the same reply. Finally the chairman said, "There, how absolutely impossible these people are. The manager will be sick and tired of the sight of his face. He has no chance of getting work." The man replied, "Ah, Mr. Clever, I am starting there on Monday morning."
At that time we met upstairs Mr. Arthur Hayday, Mr. George Buchanan—now Chairman of the National Assistance Board and, if I may be allowed to say without any invidious comparison, the best Chairman the Board have ever had—Miss Margaret Bondfield, and Sir Horace Wilson on behalf of the Treasury. We drafted the Report referring to the availability of work and application for work which exists today. It said that a person should not be deprived of unemployment benefit unless presented with a definite concrete job. That is all it did. It just shifted the onus from the individual


to the employment exchange. It said that a person must not be deprived of unemployment benefit unless it could be shown that he had declined to accept an offer of suitable employment.
That changed the whole character of the administration. I remember being told at the time that such a provision would cost the Treasury millions of pounds. I said it certainly would, because the millions would be transferred to the pockets of the unemployed from the Treasury, instead of from the pockets of the unemployed to the Treasury. That provision has existed ever since.
I think that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will agree that it has worked with almost perfect equity, because no one can say in modern society that, generally speaking, employment is a situation over which the citizen has complete control. He is as much at the mercy of social organisation, or disorganisation, as he is at the mercy of the forces of nature itself. Except by way of self-employment, which is extremely rare, he has hardly any way at all of fitting himself into a job if society does not enable him to do so. Therefore, it has become accepted practice, and, indeed, if I may be allowed to say so, accepted ethics, that a citizen ought not to be tormented because of conditions over which he cannot be said to have any reasonable control. That has been the philosophy lying behind this matter all the time.
That philosophy is not undermined by abstract references to actuarial calculations that we get all the while from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who discusses unemployed people as though they are figures in an index system. It is perfectly true to say that insurance has come to be accepted as a means by which the bulk of unemployment can be covered, but if persons find that they have exhausted their contractual rights, merely because they cannot fit themselves into artificial actuarial frontiers is no reason why they should be worse treated than those who do so fit in—unless it can be shown that they are themselves responsible for their situation. That has always been our position.
Therefore, we are entirely unmoved by the argument, as we always were, that

certain periods of benefit could not be provided because it was not actuarially possible. This worship of the sacro-sanctity of actuarial gods always bored me to death. There was actually no justification for it at all. If, indeed, the State increased its contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund sufficiently to cover everybody, the actuarial situation would not arise. It is an artificial limitation created by the revenues of the Fund. All one does is to increase the revenues of the Fund either by contributions, which we do not support because it is merely a form of indirect taxation, or by increasing its revenues from any other quarter one likes. Therefore, the actuarial difficulties would never exist.
What we are concerned about is this. If, after people have exhausted their actuarial entitlement to benefit, they still remain unemployed, and it cannot be shown that their unemployment is due to any fault of their own, there is no reason why they should suffer any more than those more fortunate than themselves. I challenge the Committee to give me reasons why they should. This business of extended benefit which was discussed on 6th July is causing considerable trouble in industrial quarters.
I earnestly urge hon. Members opposite not to allow themselves to become complacent merely because the by-elections are going in their favour. I remember that the elections before the war went in their favour. They had no great political difficulties arising out of their behaviour, but England never sank lower than when the fortunes of the Tory Party were going up. Electorally they were doing very well. They won General Election after General Election, while the industrial basis of Great Britain contracted and millions of men rotted in the employment exchanges. So I say to the party opposite: Do not imagine that, because you are electorally successful at the moment, that is any justification for the behaviour which has been suggested.
I should also like the Government to try to make some connection between one thing and another. We were asked a little earlier to have a discussion on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Industrial Advisory Council. Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer make any connection whatsoever between


the fact that we have not as much coal exports as we would like and the behaviour of the Government before the war? Is there no connection between those factors?
What do the Government say? The Government say, by what they have done on the question of extended benefit, that if a person has been disabled in the pit, if he suffers from pneumoconiosis—I am dealing with the mining industry in particular because it is the most graphic illustration that one can have—if he loses an arm or a leg or is ruptured, or is otherwise injured, and if he has had unemployment benefit for a certain time, when he has exhausted it he automatically ceases to get any more benefit, and if he requires assistance he must go along to the Assistance Board. In other words, he must lose status and income.
I put it to the Government that there is no worse way of undermining the morale of the mining industry, there is no worse way of bringing about a decline in recruitment into the mining industry, than the method now pursued by the Government. Cannot hon. Members opposite see any connection whatsoever between their conduct and the difficulty of getting people into the pits? Can anyone in any part of the Committee justify putting an injured miner or a disabled ex-Service man in a worse position merely because he has been unemployed for a certain period of time and is not able to obtain any benefit?
Why do the Government not accept the disciplines that have been accepted for so many years, and, if they cannot present a person with a suitable job, accept the obligation of paying him the same benefit as he was getting before? The very failure to present him with a suitable job is itself evidence that he is faced with social circumstances over which he has no control. Where is the logic of putting him in a worse position? I ask that question; I have asked it for 20-odd years in the House, and nobody has ever given me a satisfactory reply.
Let me assure hon. Members that this is no matter to smile at. It was only in 1935 that a certain right hon. Gentleman grinned at the subject, and he was out of office in a few weeks. We remember it very well. Hon. Members opposite should sometimes listen to what we say, because

we know rather more about this matter than they do. We must ask them to face up to their responsibilities in this matter.
We say that there is absolutely no justification in logic—and there is certainly no justification in humanity—for what is now being done. It is no answer to say that my right hon. Friend put a statutory limit to the period. In 1946 we had every reason to hope that we would now still be on the benches opposite, and not here, and would be in a position to protect the unemployed from what is now being done. Unfortunately, the country decided otherwise.
It is not enough to say that this does not matter because there are only a few people concerned. "The Times" leading article this morning sank to a level of hypocrisy which I have never seen equalled. They say that the Labour Government provided an extended benefit for five years because of the possibility of post-war dislocation, and they go on to say:
There was no such dislocation.
One would have thought that the absence of dislocation was a natural law, but its absence after the last war, as distinct from the 1914–18 war, was because the country, fortunately, had a Labour Government at the time. We did not have ex-Service men pawning their medals, millions of unemployed people, or all the scenes we had after the First World War. It was not a natural law; it was a consequence of organisation by the Government, sane financial policies, and the expansion of British capital equipment.
"The Times" goes on to say:
Extended benefit, awarded case by case by local tribunals, has been paid chiefly to persons on the fringes of the labour market"—
a lovely Pecksniffian phrase—
for whom it was never intended. Its recipients, under 50,000 at any one time. …
That is the point; there are only 50,000 of them and so they are not powerful enough to strike back. That is one of the worst features of this matter. The very fact that the number is small should mean that they should be left alone and not tormented; that is the Christian attitude that not one sparrow shall fall to the ground. But because they are small in number it seems to be thought that we can torment them and attack them.
The leading article goes on to say that recipients "have included housewives,"—one would have thought that housewives were animals to be hunted—
vagrants, men compulsorily retired on private superannuation at sixty and waiting to qualify for insurance pensions at sixty-five, and many virtually unemployable disabled elderly men.
There is not a word about pneumo-coniotics or ex-Service men. It is a matter of pretending that we are trying to prevent a number of vagrants from improperly obtaining benefit and, behind their backs, stealing it from the disabled ex-Service man and the poor disabled industrial worker. We have seen that happen over and over again. One always puts forward some person who is indefensible and then makes an attack upon him an excuse for an attack on a wider range of people. "The Times" goes on to say:
Extended benefit has never been justified by events.
What "The Times" is saying is that ever since 1945 extended benefit ought not to have been paid. So blind are they that for the last six or seven years, when one of the chief problems of Great Britain has been to build up the export trade, and particularly the export of coal, "The Times" would have surrounded the mining industry and mining villages with tormented people who would have been denied extended benefit.
Cannot "The Times" understand the social climate that would have existed in the mining industry if extended benefit had not been paid? We would have found it impossible to build up manpower in the industry. I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to make their policy intelligible, and to understand that what they do in one respect prevents them from carrying out their plans in another.
There is another matter to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should pay some attention. Again, I speak of the mining industry, because it is the one with which I am most familiar. Before the war an investigation was conducted into the incidence of accidents in pits. We discovered, to our astonishment, that the highest level of accidents occurred in the middle of the day. In most other industries accidents occur at the beginning of the day, before the man or woman has warmed up to work, or at the end of the day, when he or she becomes

fatigued, but in the mining industry at that time—although it may now have been altered by mechanisation—the accident rate was highest in the middle of the day, when the output was highest, for the very good and simple reason that in the pit increased coal production very often means the neglect of safety precautions. They postpone putting up a prop or a sprag, and they try to finish the tram in time for the hauliers, so that their very preoccupation with production increases the liability to accidents.
The miner must bear in mind all the time that if, in answering the exhortation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he produces more coal, has an accident, and loses a leg, he will be made to pay for the leg by the Minister of Health—when he had it for nothing before—and if he cannot get a job the Minister of National. Insurance will follow up the persecution of the Minister of Health and force him to go to the Assistance Board. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at this matter again because, on any reckoning, it is completely indefensible.
Before the war—and here we are back to the question of availability—the Federation of British Industries issued a series of documents in which they said that one of the defects of unemployment insurance was that it did not make the workers sufficiently mobile, but that if extended benefit were reduced or withdrawn the workers would move around the country much more easily and readily and make themselves available for employment. They advocated the curtailment of extended benefit on the ground of increasing the mobility of the workers.
Put like that, it was very agreeable to every economist. It did not mean that people were uprooted, or forced to leave their families, or that mothers and fathers were compelled to give up all the educational plans they may have formed for their children. It just meant that they would be more mobile. They were more mobile. In the years between the wars there was nothing like the mobility of the British workers. They flowed all over the place—came down to London, and went to Birmingham and Kent. Whereas the overall population between the wars increased by 12 per cent., in the South and South-East it increased by 32 per cent. Workers became mobile.
Look at the streets of London today. They are immobilised. They are shocking. We have the worst traffic problem in the world. That is how we made labour mobile. In Birmingham, the number of one-way streets has become so alarming that a stranger cannot find his way out. The fact is that what appeared to those clever people—who are still there—to be good economics before the war has resulted in more social disutility for Great Britain than can be measured. Huge cities grow as a consequence of mobility.
We tried an entirely opposite philosophy. We said that it was stupid to compel workers to accumulate in these vast metropolitan centres and, although we could not immediately decant them from there, it was more desirable to carry work to the unemployed workers than it was to try to drive them away from their homes. What is the result? This was not empiricism. This was not in accordance with the philosophy of the economists. This was not in accordance with the economics of those who appear as Conservative economists on the radio and speak all the same knowledgeable nonsense after the war as they talked before the war. This was in accordance with definite plans which we ourselves made—and what is the result? The result is that we have saved Scotland and Wales from depopulation. The result is that we have new industries in those areas. Unless we had taken that action London traffic would be not only complex, it would be congealed.
What is the proposition which is being put here? The proposition is quite simple—that we should modify the old availability test, that we should substitute it with another and that the individual must be asked to show whether there are reasonable prospects of employment in the district. In other words, once more the test is not the objective test of the offer of a job but is a subjective evaluation of the possibilities of work by the tribunal and by the individual without, as far as we can see, any precise guidance.
It means, therefore, that if we have, as we have in some of our mining districts, groups of disabled men for whom employment has not been found, then the more times that a tribunal, according to the advice here, has found that the

man has reasonably refused a suitable offer, the greater is the evidence that he should move away from there. That is the argument here.
A man goes before the tribunal and each time the tribunal says, "You are right." Having argued a series of right decisions on his behalf, they then say, "That, of course, is evidence that you ought to go away." It is like taking a man before a police court on 10 occasions, and on each occasion he is found innocent; and then on the eleventh occasion they say, "There must be something wrong with this chap or he would not have been here 10 times before." That is the logic we have here.
What we are saying is this: we are not claiming in this regard that we have been as successful as we ought to have been. We have not provided enough centres of employment for disabled people in the industrial areas. As my right hon. Friend said on 6th July, we ought to have done it on a bigger scale. We ought to have been more imaginative and maybe we ought to have been ready to risk more money. That is no justification for making the individual the victim of our own misdeeds and our own neglect. That is no argument at all. It is rather that we should now realise that this stubborn, small group of unemployed people ought to be tackled imaginatively and not only imaginatively but pitifully. The number is only 48,000, and of those 48,000 probably a very considerable number have to get assistance now.
We therefore ask the Minister why he found it necessary to ask the Advisory Committee to advise him on the modification of the availability rule? How did that come about? We shall be told that it was because some housewives who were employed during the war have been getting unemployment benefit after the war. As we were told about vagrants, so we shall be told that. What we want to know, however, is whether the application of any Regulations which the Minister may make will have the effect of tormenting injured industrial workers and injured ex-Service men. We are afraid that they will, because in paragraph 15 the Committee say:
It is not, however, always practicable to rely upon offers of employment thought to be suitable to the claimant's circumstances in applying the availability rule. Offers of


employment must necessarily be made by employment exchanges primarily in accordance with employment policy directed to matching workers and vacancies, and only secondarily directed to assisting in the equitable administration of unemployment benefit. In any event, however many vacancies suitable to the general run of claimants may be on offer, appropriate vacancies to test the availability of a particular claimant do not necessarily arise at the right place at the right time for this purpose …
In other words, they specifically say that because they cannot make the test of availability clear by the offer of employment, that itself is evidence that that worker should receive a certain amount of ex gratia payment at the end of which he should get no more and should be expected to go elsewhere to look for work.
The Committee also say:
It has been represented to us that certain other special groups should be excepted from the operation of the proposed provisions, for example, workers who have been disabled in an industrial accident, and elderly workers generally, so as to allow persons in these groups to continue to receive unemployment benefit, even if their normal employment is no longer open to them and they have no future prospect of employment consistent with the restrictions they impose. This was urged on the grounds that such persons cannot be expected to accept different employment, or to move to a new locality where their usual employment may be available for them.
The Committee went on to say:
We do not consider there is sufficient justification for such a concession. …
In other words, the Committee themselves, having been apprised of the problem, say they cannot agree that a concession should be made in the case of disabled persons and elderly persons. The only assumption we can reach from that is that if the Minister makes Regulation consistent with those recommendation, those who are now receiving standard benefit, as well as extended benefit—that is, all benefit—in the industrial districts of Great Britain may have their benefits stopped after an ex gratia payment. We must face that, and one of the advantages of having this discussion today before the Minister has made his Regulations is that we can warn him that if he makes Regulations of that sort serious disturbance will occur. We therefore ask him to be very careful indeed in what he does in this respect.
I want to end by asking the Minister another question. The Parliamentary

Secretary made this curious statement on 6th July, as reported in column 983 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, after he had been asked by my right hon. Friend whether the General Council of Trades Union Congress had made representations against this Regulation: he said he had not received any formal representations. I do not understand this at all. What is meant by:
I have already said that there have been no format representations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1953; Vol. 517, c. 983.]
What is a formal representation? Must there be three blasts on a bugle outside the National Insurance office? Is this a Coronation year complex that we have? We understand that the Permanent Secretary of the Department was seen by a deputation and that at that meeting the Permanent Secretary was informed that the General Council desired the old provisions to continue at least until there had been a general review. Is that the case? We would like to know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Did the hon. Gentleman receive those representations? In that debate he dodged; he shifted; he said there were no formal representations. He went on coyly to say that it would not be proper to give an indication of those discussions. He had already given an indication that the General Council had not made any formal representations against the Regulation. He had given that indication, but when we asked him whether, in the course of the discussions with the Permanent Secretary, they objected, he was so coy. He said it would be improper to disclose that.
In exactly the same way, when my right hon. Friend asked how many married women continued to receive extended benefit, which the pilot survey had disclosed they did, he said it would be improper to give the figure. Since when has statistical surveys been improper? I must say that this is a piece of Mother Grundism if ever there was one. This is a figure we ought to have been given.
If it is a fact that these Regulations are necessary to catch a few housewives coming into direct benefit who were never intended to have it, we should like to know how many there are in that category, and how many vagrants there are. We should like to know what is the justification for this fraction of 48,000 now


being under our consideration. That is what we should like to know. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be pressed to tell us.
I apologise to the Committee for speaking rather longer than I intended, but I hope that the small dimension of this problem will not persuade hon. and right hon. Members opposite to pursue their course. I hope that the political popularity they imagine they are enjoying at the moment will not cause them to repeat the blunders for which Great Britain has paid so high a price for so many years. I hope we shall provide whatever sense of security can be obtained for the workers, especially in our basic industries, and I sincerely beg hon. and right hon. Members opposite not to reintroduce into industrial relations in Great Britain, particularly in the mining industry, poisons not yet fully eradicated.

4.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): It will be my endeavour to explain to the Commitee some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with concerning the administration of the Department in this respect. This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss the added days Regulations which I understood the Opposition were anxious to discuss today, although in fact the right hon. Gentleman did not open on that point in his speech. The major part of his speech dealt with the Report on the availability question that has been received from the National Insurance Advisory Committee, a body which was set up under the 1946 Act and which gives the Ministry advice on subjects that are remitted to it.
One of the questions addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman was why this question was put to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The answer is that there were a number of cases where persons were unemployed and yet were engaged in subsidiary employments. At the present time they are limited under certain very rigid definitions to subsidiary employment and in particular to an earnings limit of 3s. 4d. a day.
That question, and questions dealing with seasonal workers, made my right hon. Friend think a year ago that it

would be wise for the National Insurance Advisory Committee to review this whole question of subsidiary employment and availability, and now, having got this Report, which has been printed, we are studying it with great care, and we shall be most grateful to hear the representations and advice of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the Committee on it, because we have got to make up our minds on the proper action to take when we have studied this Report. This is a very intricate matter, but it is an important matter because one of the recommendations made by this Committee is to increase substantially the amount allowed to be earned per day for subsidiary employment.
With regard to this matter of the additional days Regulations——

Mr. Bevan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, why will he not tell us why it was that this Report was not disclosed before the 6th July?

Mr. Turton: This Report had to be considered in the Department in the normal way, as was the practice in the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and then had to be printed. That is the only reason. It came on 16th April at a time when we were introducing the Bill dealing with maternity benefits. They had to be dealt with, and then the Report was brought out as quickly as conveniently could be done. It makes no real difference. No decision has been taken. This matter is being studied now by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly): Three months, let me say at once, may be required to consider it, and I gather that during those three months the Department have been considering it, but the House will adjourn tomorrow week until 20th October. Are we to hear the Minister's decision on this before the House adjourns for such a long Recess?

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend will not be making any Regulations on this matter until the House reassembles in October. We want as much time as possible to consider the matter, and we do welcome help and advice from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have knowledge of this problem, because we admit at once that it is a very intricate


and detailed problem; but do not let anybody think it is our intention or the intention of the National Insurance Advisory Committee in any way to torpedo the joint social security system for the unemployed for which hon. Members on both sides have been responsible.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government are very willing to receive opinions from hon. Members in all parts of the Committee before they make up their minds, but does he not realise they have made up their minds and that all this is inextricably mixed up with the eligibility question?

Mr. Turton: If I may get on, I can come to the added days procedure.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman cannot separate it.

Mr. Turton: The difficulty is that if I were to discuss in detail any subject requiring legislation I should be out of order, but I hope I may be allowed a certain latitude to enable me to deal with this subject without offending against the rule. I remember that on 6th July the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said:
My right hon. and hon. Friends will have to pray against these Regulations at an appropriate time when they can submit them to a very close analysis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1953; Vol. 517, c. 937.]
Notwithstanding the fact that these Regulations were laid as long ago as 21st May, that forecast has not been fulfilled. The 40 days have run out, and I conclude from that that on further examination the Opposition have decided that, far from being harmful, these Regulations confer very great benefits on the insured population. Such in fact is the case.

Mr. Bevan: We decided that it would be much more convenient to have a discussion on Supply, as we now have, than to have a discussion late at night on a Prayer.

Mr. Turton: If I am to understand that these Regulations are not accepted by the Opposition as conferring great benefits, let me attempt to justify them.
The history of added days goes back as far as the Holman Gregory Report in 1932. In that Report the Royal Commission recommended a system of added

days for insured persons with a good record of contributions. Section 3 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, adopting these recommendations, laid down that from March, 1935, there should be a system of added days based on a formula of 3 added days for every 5 contributions in the last 5 contribution years, less 1 day for every 5 days of unemployment benefit in those years. It was a condition of granting those added days that a contributor should have been insured for 5 years, and that condition has been continued in all the schemes that followed.
Under the 1934 Act, therefore, there was a maximum number of added days of 156. The standard period of unemployment benefit at that time was 156 days, and that made a total possible period of unemployment benefit of 312 days. During the war the arrangement for added days had to be suspended because the necessary records were not available, and as compensation the period of standard benefit was raised from 156 days to 180. When the records again became available after the war, the Labour Government revived the added days provision in April, 1946, altering the formula to five added days for every eight contributions in the last four contribution years, less one day for every 10 days of unemployment benefit in those years. That made the maximum number of added days 130, instead of 156, but the combined total of 310, was more or less the same as before the war.
The National Insurance Act, 1946, provided in Section 12 for a system of additional days for all people insured for unemployment benefit under the new scheme. The Act specifically requires that such additional days should be based on the claimant's previous record of contributions and unemployment benefit drawn. Our predecessors, although they armed themselves with these powers, never made use of them. But what the right hon. Member for Llanelly did was to introduce Regulations to provide added days for those insured before 5th July, 1948. His formula was very similar to that under the 1946 Regulations, except that instead of the deduction being one day for every 10 days of unemployment benefit drawn in the last four years, it became one day for every five days of unemployment benefit drawn in the last two years. The


effect still remained that any insured person entitled to unemployment benefit could draw that benefit for a standard period of 180 days of unemployment without need to requalify, and in addition those insured before 5th July, 1948, could by added days increase that period up to 310.
These Regulations have been in force for five years. My right hon. Friend, on considering the matter, came to the conclusion that the time had arrived when a more generous provision in the way of additional days should be given, and that those who came into insurance after 5th July, 1948, should no longer be debarred from claiming additional days of unemployment benefit. Thus he exercised his powers under Section 12 of the National Insurance Act and submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee Draft Regulations which had the following effect. First, that the maximum number of added days should be raised from 130 to 312. That made the maximum combined total 492 days, taking in the 180 days of standard benefit. Second, that the formula should in future be three additional days for every five contributions in the last 10 years less one day for every 10 days of unemployment benefit drawn in the last four years.
Under these Regulations, persons with insurance rights under the old Unemployment Insurance Scheme will receive a block credit of 52 contributions a year for all years before July, 1948, during which they were over the age of 16 or in in which they reached that age, whatever had been their record of unemployment during that time.
To deal with the problem of those who have either been receiving extended benefit or have qualified for added days under the previous Regulations, special provision is made so as to disregard those periods for the purposes of the formula. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly, speaking on 6th July, complained that the Regulations were too complicated, and said that not one in 10,000 unemployed men would understand or be able to calculate the additional days to which they were entitled. I think that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) made a similar complaint.
I admit at once that the Regulations are not light reading, but they deal with a technical subject, and the same criticism would apply to all the other added days Regulations that had been before the House since 1935. Over 20,000 people were on added days under the Regulations which were introduced by the right hon. Member for Llanelly. I have not had it brought to my notice that the complexity of the old added days Regulations ever caused any trouble. Might not the truth be that the Ministry concerned has built up a relationship with its clients of such a kind—it has certainly tried hard to do so—that they do not suspect it of trying to do them out of benefit.
The ordinary man assumes that the Ministry is giving him a square deal on added days. He gets a letter well before his entitlement runs out, explaining the position and giving him a chance to raise any points. If he raises any query the officers of the Ministry of Labour have instructions to show him his record and try to explain the calculations to him. If he is still dissatisfied he can apply to the independent local tribunal and have the matter thrashed out.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry have had to send out to every exchange a special calculating aid to enable its own staff to do the job?

Mr. Turton: That surely shows the efficiency of the Ministry. Let me help the right hon. Gentleman. The broad effect of these Regulations is this. When a man is coming to the end of his seven months standard benefit, the Regulations say, "Look at the man's contribution record for the last 10 years and give him one week's extra benefit for every 10 contributions he has paid in those years." As hon. Members will readily see, that gives a possible maximum of a year in added days. From that figure take away one week for every 10 weeks employment benefit he has had in the last four years.
These Draft Regulations were published as long ago as last February and received notices in all the leading newspapers. Hon. Members will be familiar with the procedure. They were referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Will Spens. Let me make it absolutely clear


that members of the Advisory Committee, though they are appointed after consultation with particular bodies, do not in any way represent those bodies. Once a person has been appointed to serve on the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in the judgment of my right hon. Friend, he serves in his individual capacity and should not in any way be regarded as binding the particular body or party consulted about his appointment. I wish to make that abundantly clear.

Mr. Bevan: That is very necessary.

Mr. Turton: The National Insurance Advisory Committee asked for representations on these Draft Regulations from interested parties and individuals. The Committee report shows that the only substantial representation they received was one that the Regulations offered too much benefit. The Committee rejected that representation and approved the Regulations and this formula, and I feel sure that if the Committee has the opportunity they will give the same verdict.

Mr. Bevan: That is an extremely skilful way to put it. As I understood it, all that was intended by that representation was to show in point of fact that this transferred to the fund the burden formerly belonging to the Executive; that the fund itself ought not to be asked to carry such an extended period of benefit. It did not mean that the unemployed worker should get less, but rather that the fund should not carry so much of the burden.

Mr. Turton: I am not a member of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but I must say that having read that report with great care I came to a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: Where? Just tell us where.

Mr. Turton: It does not matter——

Mr. Bevan: Oh.

Mr. Turton: Be that as it may, it does not matter. The important part is the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee and not the detailed representations put before it. The point is—I say it again because I wish to emphasise it—that the only representation the Committee received

was one which indeed said that the proposals were too generous.
I am anxious not to exaggerate the extent to which these Regulations will come into play under present conditions. The unemployed rate has dropped to under 1½ per cent. Of the claimants to unemployment benefit every year, only a very small number remain unemployed for long enough to run out of the standard period of seven months. In fact, the average period of unemployment is only three weeks. In present conditions of full employment, which we all hope will continue, the average man will not need added days at all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) put certain points about the debate on 6th July. Let me clear up any misunderstanding which arose in that debate about the representations made on this subject by the T.U.C. What happened was that late in January oral representations were made at the official level. These were duly reported to my right hon. Friend who now appreciates that the T.U.C. regarded these representations as expressing the formal conclusions of the T.U.C. My right hon. Friend is very glad to make that position clear.
In paragraph 9 the Committee deal with the effect of added days on those who have come off extended benefit. They state:
The system of extended benefit has, in effect, been used to provide for many cases such as will be dealt with by the present proposals as to additional days. We recognise that a permanent provision based on a statutory right to benefit must be on a different basis from a discretionary payment primarily designed to meet a special post-war need extending for a limited period. We consider, however, that it is right that the permanent provision should be as generous as possible, since it will to a substantial extent deal with cases which have been dealt with in the past under the extended benefit arrangements.
That paragraph and those recommendations were very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend when he drafted these Regulations, and in effect they will be generous to those who have come off extended benefit. For that reason——

Mr. J. Griffiths: Let us get this clear. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as myself are receiving letters from our constituents regarding the number of additional days which, under the new Regulations, will be awarded to


persons who were on extended benefit. The Parliamentary Secretary calls them generous. May I tell him that in my constituency there are cases varying from 50 to 80 which means that in February they will have completely exhausted the added days? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that is generous?

Mr. Turton: I have said that as we were framing these Regulations we tried to help those on extended benefit, and to make the provision for added days as generous as possible. Under the Regulations we arranged that all those people who have run out of their insurance benefit, and were receiving extended benefit when the new arrangements started this month, shall keep their entitlement to additional days of unemployment benefit, because they are to be treated as if they had only just run out of their standard benefit before the new arrangements started.
The effect of this concession is that for over two years to come it will not be possible for any person insured before July, 1948, to be restricted to the basic 180 days, however bad his or her employment record may have been. All the persons insured before July, 1948, who were on extended benefit when it expired a week or so ago, received added days varying from 10 weeks to over 40 weeks.
I wish to give the Committee the details of what has happened to those on extended benefit before 5th July, 1948. I am afraid I must trouble the Committee with a number of figures, which I hope they will forgive, but there have been considerable notices in the Press on the subject, and I thought it right that the figures should be given, so that we may see the size of the problem.
On 5th July there were some 47,000 people on extended benefit. Let me remind the Committee what my right hon. Friend said, that it was no static figure, that men were going in and out of extended benefit. I think the figure he quoted was that 41 per cent. were on extended benefit for less than a year. Of the 47,000 who had been on extended benefit, 39,000 qualify for added days. Of the 39,000 who qualified to receive added days, 20,000 received added days for more than 30 weeks. [Interruption.] Perhaps if I give the figures it will all come clear to the right hon. Gentleman.

I hope it does; if not he can interrupt me. Only 1,600 received the minimum of 10 weeks.
I want the Committee to realise that these 1,600 are the hard core of this problem. They are those who, ever since 1948, have been on extended benefit or standard benefit—who have had no employment since 1948. That is the hard core—1,600 out of 47,000.

Mr. Tom Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary says that there are 1,600 receiving 10 weeks added benefit. Will he tell us how those figures have been arrived at so as to show that the low figure which he has now indicated to the Committee is correct?

Mr. Turton: I do not quite follow the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's question. When I was talking about these Regulations I explained how we had so drafted them as to give as much favour and generosity as we could to those who had been on extended benefit. I now have the reports, which I received only yesterday, from all the offices throughout the Kingdom. If any hon. Gentleman is interested in any particular area I can give him details afterwards. That means that only about 1,600—the actual figure is 1,656 out of 47,331—receive only the minimum of 10 weeks.
Let me turn to the 8,000——

Mr. Brown: I was anxious to find out how the Department has arrived at the very low figure of just over 1,600 who have gone beyond the benefits to which they were entitled. What machine was put into operation to find out the very low number, because there is a dwindling from 47,000 to 1,600?

Mr. Turton: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I did not understand the nature of his question. Every insured person who had been on extended benefit received a letter—I have here a copy of the letter which explained to him what was his entitlement to additional days. It says:
In your current period of interruption of employment, you have received … days of benefit.
It goes on:
The maximum number of days which can be allowed in your case is …
The minimum figure was put in that final blank in 1,656 cases.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Parliamentary Secretary being fair with the Committee? He has not mentioned that certain persons on extended benefit received Form M 406. Will he disclose the contents of that form, which says, "You are not entitled to extended benefit at all"?

Mr. Turton: I wish to be abundantly fair, and I was going on to say when I was interrupted—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will acquit me of any desire to be unfair——

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brown rose——

Mr. Turton: I had better get on.

Mr. Brown: I have the particulars here.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend will wind up the debate, and I think it will be better if I am allowed to make my speech without further interruption, and if questions are asked for my right hon. Friend to answer. I suggest that, not for my convenience but for the convenience of hon. and right hon. Members.
The remaining 8,000–47,000 less 39,000—were those who had not been insured before 5th July, 1948. They did not receive any added days at all. I should like to give the Committee particulars of those 8,000. Of that number 1,300 have found work. 238 are now on sickness benefit——

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary is giving very important figures. He began by saying that 8,000 will not get any added benefits. He says that of those 8,000 so many have found work. If those figures are to be used in that way the obvious inference is that when they were told that there were to be no added days they found a job.

Mr. Turton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clear up that point. I did say at the beginning that this 47,000 were constantly coming on to and going off extended benefit. In the case of these 1,300, we are dealing with men who have been on extended benefit and then got work about 5th July—[Interruption.]—yes, at about the same time. Two hundred and thirty-eight are now on sickness benefit and 1,158 have gone onto National Assistance in addition to the 1,489 such persons who already receive it.

Mr. Bevan: That is, an addition to the 1,000-odd have gone on to Assistance?

Mr. Turton: One thousand one hundred and fifty-eight more have gone on to Assistance; there were some 1,400 already on.

Mr. Ness Edwards: And the number remaining who are getting nothing at all is what?

Mr. Turton: The number remaining are those who are getting credits, registering at employment exchanges, and in fact are mainly those who are superannuated—[Interruption.] I do not quite know what M 406 is. They are those who have not been claiming National Assistance—[Interruption.] They are getting their cards franked. They include a number of people who are on superannuation, married women, etc. They come to about 3,000. These figures refute the suggestion that the introduction of these Regulations on the expiry of extended benefit has resulted in a wholesale transfer from benefit to National Assistance.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in giving detailed figures but the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale mentioned, in passing, the position in Wales. I should like to give the Committee some figures, as there are a number of Welsh Members who are interested in the figures for Wales. Of the 6,800 persons on extended benefit in Wales, 6,100 are now receiving added days under the Regulations. Of the others, 110 have found work, 35 are on sickness benefit, and only 270 are on National Assistance, of whom 135 were already receiving it. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): It will help the order of the debate if, when hon. Members wish to interrupt, they will stand. Otherwise hon. Members will not be able to hear what is going on.

Mr. Turton: In Wales there were about 580 who had the minimum period. That is the figure for Wales.
To sum up the position, the effect of these Regulations is to make the biggest extension of insurance cover against unemployment which this country has ever enjoyed. There was, in this House, in 1946, general agreement that unemployment insurance should form part of our


system of social security. I listened with care to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about what should be the system of insurance for unemployment. I cannot really believe that there is any division of opinion on that question in the House at present. We are all proud in this House of the insurance principle.

Mr. Bevan: Your side was against it.

Mr. Turton: When we had debates and Divisions on this matter in 1946 the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his party and the Conservative Party were united in attaching importance to the insurance principle, believing that it was better for a man to be able to claim this benefit as a right than to get it as a concession after investigation by a committee or tribunal. By these Regulations we are entitled to claim that we have made more than ample provision for any short-term unemployment, and have gone further towards putting the benefit for long-term unemployment on a purely insurance basis, than any previous Government. That this step has been taken is surely a matter for congratulation for all hon. Members of this House. It is a result of the success of this country in maintaining a policy of full employment, and to that success all parties in this House, and all sections of industry, have made notable contributions.

5.11 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Thomas, because I represent a constituency which, more than any other, will be affected by these proposals. My constituency is in a country which is carrying the heaviest proportion of unemployed, as it always has done. In Scotland in 1933 the overall figure was three million and my constituency was carrying 56 per cent.
I do not like to refer to my constituents as "my" people because it sounds possessive. They are not all my people. Perhaps I could refer to 24,000 of them as my people, but there were 17,000 of them who voted Tory. So, if I may say so to the Minister of National Insurance, "They are your people." It is a long time since the people in this constituency were easily divided; it is a long time since they have allowed even religious

questions to divide them. There came a time when they were cemented, and that time synchronised with the means test for not genuinely seeking work. That is the very thing we are returning to now in these two documents.
In the "added days" document the National Insurance Advisory Committee say that this present alteration was based on the assumption that unemployment will not exceed 4 per cent. on the average from year to year and over the whole country. It goes on:
We are informed that it is estimated on certain assumptions that if the figure of 4 per cent. were reached, the additional cost to the National Fund … would be of the order of £2,000,000 a year.
Can it be that the party in power see an end of rearmament, see a slump coming from America, and are cutting out quickly before it comes? The Report goes on:
… it appears to us inevitable that a prolonged period of unemployment substantially in excess of 4 per cent. would involve a reconsideration of the whole financial position of national insurance.
They refer to the quinquennial period in paragraph 5 as follows:
… additional expenditure will of course have to be taken into account, together with additional expenditure in other directions, in the forthcoming quinquennial review.
Why not postpone this until the quinquennial review? Have the conditions altered under which the Regulations were launched? For example, I find in Coatbridge that we are still in transitional conditions. In my constituency four mines closed down a long time ago. The miners have tried to get themselves into other jobs but they are not always successful. The result is that they are on the employment exchange for long periods. They are elderly men. I notice that in the second document, which I call the "not genuinely seeking work" document, though it is termed "the Availability Question," paragraph 10 says:
It is an accepted principle of the administration of unemployment benefit that if a person chooses to reside in, and is unwilling to move from, a part of the country where there is no employment of a kind which is suitable for him, he is regarded as not available for employment and ceases to be eligible for unemployment benefit.
That is the death blow to a great many human beings—not index numbers, but human beings—in Airdrie and Coat-


bridge. The difficulty there is skill versus unskill, and there must be many openings on that register for skilled men. These men are skilled in a trade that is no longer open to them. Jobs may be available in Glasgow which is eight miles away, but as these men are in their late fifties or early sixties it would be difficult for them to undertake to travel that distance. Simply because we have not filled up our Development Area and our industrial trading estate, these men will now be thrown on to the means test.

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Lady will allow me to interrupt, surely she is referring to the Report published in 1949, three years ago, at a time when her Front Bench were in power? The quotations she has made are from a report on seasonal work.

Mrs. Mann: I am quoting from the two documents just issued. One is the "National Insurance (Additional days of Unemployment Benefit) Regulations," and this one is Command Paper 8894 dated 1st July, 1953, and I am quoting from paragraph 10 on page 7. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to tell me that most of these people would be in receipt of supplementary benefit in any case; but there are the exceptions. He might have said that if they are already in receipt of supplementary benefit, they will not be affected in any way. Supplementary benefit, however, means the death knell to a great many of my constituents.
A great many people resent being on supplementary benefit. Many of them have lost the companionship of their sons, who gave their lives in the war. They receive something in the way of compensation for that loss, which, with their transitional benefit, gives them just a little extra comfort. When the added days have come to an end, these people will lose. They will go on to the public assistance rate. For them the means test will operate.
If I may refer again to the availability question, there is the position of the widows to be considered. They are referred to as married women so that sympathy might not be unduly evoked. A great many of the married women, however, are widows, and the widow, particularly, requires to be looked after.

In paragraph 18 of the Report, the widow is disqualified. These reasons are given:
… a claimant's, particularly a married woman's, personal circumstances may be such that, despite numerous vacancies thought to be suitable, there may be virtually no employment which can be offered which she cannot show good cause for refusing; thirdly, in certain exceptional cases it is found that, when a vacancy is offered, the claimant is able to avoid accepting the employment without actually refusing it.
We are told that these women—widows, for instance, who cannot accept full-time jobs because they want to spend some of their time at home with their children—will find themselves out of benefit.
Paragraph 28 refers to the disabled and the elderly, and says:
We do not consider there is sufficient justification for such a concession"—
a concession that will enable them to have some kind of choice—
since this would involve a radical departure from a basic principle of the Act, and moreover since, in our view, the proposed provision would be sufficiently flexible to avoid hardship in these cases.
I do not think that that is at all a flexible provision. The elderly, the disabled—those in receipt of pensions—and many widows will find that when they apply for supplementary benefit, their pensions will be reduced. They will be brought into line with those who are struggling with poverty and who every day are meeting with defeat—defeat in rising prices and a prolonged period of a small increment.
Members on the Government Front Bench forget that these little extra benefits in industrial injuries payments and in pensions allow for household renewals—an extra pair of blankets, for example. Blankets wear thin, remember. Linoleum goes thin as well. Without these little extra benefits, there can be absolutely no new clothing, no new bedding and no new household furniture renewals. That is one of the dastardly things of prolonged periods on supplementary benefit.
The old age pensioners know that. They know that at the age of 65 they have an expectancy of life of, perhaps, another 10 years, or probably 20 years. The time comes when the suit of clothing which a pensioner thought at the age of 65 would serve him to the end of his days, is finished and a new one is required, together with new boots, new furniture or furnishings, and new plenishings; but the public assistance rate takes no notice


of that whatever. Therefore, in addition to the old age pensioners, who are already suffering from the Government's proposals, we are to have the widows, the more disabled, the more elderly and pensioners brought into the same category.
For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
Even that little which these people have is to be taken away by these Regulations. I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some respect, and at the Minister also in allowing themselves to be persuaded to put this proposal into effect just now when they could quite well have waited until the quinquennial review.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This debate and its complacency remind me of a respected Member of the House, the late Mr. Oliver Stanley, who put regulations through the House, but within a few months there was such a situation in parts of the country, particularly in South Wales, Manchester and Glasgow, that the House had to withdraw them.
I admit that one cannot draw an analogy between these days and those, but having been through all this and knowing what it means, I am a very frightened man, and I say that we are bound to be concerned about the effect of these proposals. I venture to prophesy that if the industrial situation changes, if there is a slump or recession in other parts of the world and it affects our position in this country, there will be difficulties ahead of us similar to those with which the late Mr. Oliver Stanley had to contend.
As a result of that experience, I gradually saw Mr. Oliver Stanley change until he became a big man handling affairs in a big way. It is such a terrible experience as that, when the country was in so difficult a position because of the Regulations, with mighty demonstrations throughout the country, that steels a man and puts him on his guard against a repetition of that kind of thing. Had the late Mr. Oliver Stanley been living today, he would have warned the Government, as a result of his own experience, of the effect that would be likely to arise.
I admit frankly that I am frightened by these proposals. It is the beginning

of tinkering and patching with our national insurance and it is only a matter of time, once we start with this kind of thing, before we shall run headlong towards a vicious, mean, means test. Paragraph 7 on page 6 of the Beveridge Report says:
A revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.
That was said when the war was on, and all in this country supported that because of the terrible needs this country had. Now we are beginning to play about, as we did after the First World War, with the rights that the people won during the war. We have a Conservative Government in power which again is beginning to patch and tinker with what we achieved through the terrible sacrifices of our people during the war. In my innocence, I thought that even the Conservative Party would have profited by our experience in the last world war.

Mr. Richard Fort: Does not the Regulation we are discussing today arise directly from Section 61 of the Act which the hon. Member's party passed in 1946. the National Insurance Act?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thought it was Section 62.

Mr. Fort: Originally it was Section 61.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept a certain amount of responsibility for that, and will deal with it later, but the position is not quite as was made out in the interjection. We have travelled along the road and looked back with pride on the mileage we had covered since at the end of the war because we had travelled far from the terrible Poor Law days.
The Poor Law was criminally administered throughout the country. I never forget the days of 1931–32 when disabled ex-Service men were treated so badly, and once we begin on the slippery slope of this sort of thing we are apt to get back to those days. I could not be a party to that without making some observations about it. I ask, where are we going? We are first having the abolition of extended benefit, because in time it will mean that. Then we have Statutory Instrument No. 848 under which the Minister submits the question of availability to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
It may be a strange coincidence that we are discussing these together at the present time. Why should we discuss Statutory Instrument No. 848 and the availability question at the same time? We need to be on our guard, to ask what all this means, and where we are going? The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) drew attention to Section 62, which provided for extended benefit while available for employment. That is to be replaced by Statutory Instrument No. 848 with no additional days, and eventually the effect will be the National Assistance Board. The National Assistance Board are tightening up their administration in personnel, regulations and the spirit in which the administration is carried on, and that is a danger signal. Is it also intended that other benefits should be affected by this? Once a man's insurance record is affected in this way, will there be any danger of sickness benefit, disability benefit and old age pensions being affected in time?

Mr. Turton: Is the question the hon. Member asks, are old age pensions and sickness benefit affected by the additional days Regulation? That is the Regulation before the Committee.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Or will it be affected by the Report we are also considering in regard to availability and interpretation of availability?

Mr. Bevan: If people are passing from extended benefit to the Assistance Board, then immediately the administration of the Assistance Board becomes the question.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. Friend drew attention to the leader in "The Times" today. It is typical of the superior middle class attitude we get from people living relatively easily in journalism. People in this country have suffered far too long from relatively well placed people who start work late in the morning and finish early in the evening while other people are carrying on the production of the country. The article is typical of those who have never experienced this kind of thing. "The Times" says that under 50,000 would be affected and that included are housewives, vagrants and those on superannuation. That is always the kind of case used by people preparing to worsen the position of those suffering through no fault of their own

and we are bound to draw attention to that.
Behind the question of availability I see lurking the question of "not genuinely seeking employment." Behind the availability consideration I see lurking the Anomalies Act and all that Act meant. I remember the days when our girls were forced into domestic service wth its low pay and with its terrible humiliation. I have read this Report from cover to cover and I am very concerned about the Summary of Recommendations. It reminds me of the stand which only a small handful of us took at the Bristol Trades Union Congress in 1931.
The Government of the day had introduced the Anomalies Act and there were all kinds of proposals of the same character as those in this Report. One proposal left it to the Minister to administer Regulations in accordance with how he thought they should be administered. We ought to profit by that experience and make quite clear that we cannot afford to leave it to any Minister to administer any Regulations in accordance with his own interpretation. What is meant should be strictly laid down in the Regulations.
Here are two or three examples from the Summary of Recommendations. Number 1 states:
if he imposes such restrictions on the nature, locality or hours of work.
That reminds me that between the two wars the engineering employers proposed to increase hours. There was great indignation throughout the country and the proposal had to be withdrawn. Suppose that proposal were made again and men refused to accept employment with those increased hours, how would they be affected in regard to eligibility for benefit? Suppose some individual firms which are not in the employers' federation decide to increase the hours and there is a pool of unemployment in that area. Suppose some of these people are sent to factories where the hours have been increased and because of that increase they refuse to do the work, will that be interpreted in such a way that it will be held that these people are not available for employment?
Then it is laid down: "… when reasonable, a period for adjustment. …" What is "reasonable"? What is considered reasonable in one quarter will not


be in another. What is considered reasonable in Eastbourne may not be considered reasonable in Manchester. Therefore, instead of having uniformity in administration, as the Beveridge Report recommended, instead of all being on the same basis as we were during the war and as we have been since the end of the war, differences are now going to be made. The difficulties of war time having been overcome, we are beginning again to place our feet on the slippery slope. We all know what that means. So I want to ask a few more questions as to the interpretation that will be placed on these proposals.
In the industry in which I am engaged men have to serve seven years in their trade to fulfil its requirements, and then they learn for at least another 10 years. They must make themselves well informed mathematically and geometrically. They must be adaptable and they must be able to apply ingenuity so as to produce what they are asked to produce. After all that, if they cannot obtain employment in their own area are they to be subject again to humiliations of the kind embodied in proposals of the character of those being discussed by the Committee?
In addition to that, everyone knows or ought to know who it was that suffered worst under the Anomalies Act carried by this House many years ago. It was the Lancashire cotton operatives who were forced to go to places like Blackpool and Southport and work for next to nothing, because they were afraid of damaging the interests of their mothers and fathers with whom they lived. We should remember that it is the miners first then the agricultural workers, the engineers, the pottery workers and the cotton operatives who are producing the exports upon which all in this country are living. It was these people in particular who were responsible for production during the war which gained them the admiration of the whole world. Since the end of the war they have done the same thing, and their reward is a tinkering with the unemployment benefit proposals of the kind such as we are discussing now. This is contrary to the Beveridge Report, and if anyone challenges that I have the Report here.
Members in all parts of the House unanimously supported the proposals

contained in that Report, and during the war years demanded their enactment. Now having got safely through the war there is a fear again that large scale unemployment—for that is what lies behind these proposals—will prevail. It is now suggested that the girls of Lancashire, the girls of the potteries and those poor people who, in the main, cannot speak for themselves and cannot afford legal advice, are again to suffer. They put their confidence in those of us who are not afraid to speak on their behalf, and I for one intend to do it as long as I am a Member of this House.
These proposals will be administered in such a way that once an individual cannot obtain employment he will be struck off benefit. The authorities will say to him, "But you can transfer to another area." The average man will say, "Ah, but there are no houses there." Then the authorities will reply, "Well, you are not entitled to benefit." It is not in two years or three years that we need to be fighting proposals of this kind. It is this afternoon, and by so doing we warn our own people what faces them unless we can take the appropriate action here to prevent it.
It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)—and let me here say he is my real right hon. Friend—who appointed the inter-Departmental committee to make a comprehensive survey of the social insurance and allied services. I remember everyone in this House in those days supporting that proposal. Then we had the Report. Legislation was carried out based upon that Report. But today the country is being deceived. Different proposals are being put through the House, and that is the workers' reward once they have got us safely through the war.
I should like to say this in order to give a concrete example of what I mean. Before the war it fell to my lot to have to fight the greatest and most able demagogue that reaction has ever thrown up in this country. I recall that the people in those days were losing confidence in the ability of the democratic machine to deal with their needs. When the war came the people rallied to the nation in a way as no one could have dreamt they would. Then after the war we had a Labour Government, and to their credit they carried out almost every promise that was made in their election programme. The result


was that the people's confidence in democracy was completely restored.
It is being undermined today. Tinkering with the people's rights in the way these proposals do will undermine that confidence, because attacks are now being made upon the rights which the people have won, and they are being asked to suffer just as they had to in the days before the war. It was my privilege—and here again I believe in giving credit where it is due, and I am going to do it now that I have caught the eye of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs)—to work with my right hon. Friend for years on matters of this kind. He was the chairman of the trades union insurance committee, and month after month the men and women on that committee met together preparing evidence which was eventually placed before the Beveridge Committee.
Sir William Beveridge, as he was then, met some of us time after time and spoke to us of those proposals, and it was largely upon that evidence that subsequent legislation was framed. Men like James Smythe and others gave their lives for this kind of thing in order to try to safeguard the people's interest and fix a minimum below which no one should be allowed to go. Now after all this great work we find that the Government are tinkering with the scheme.
I understand that the three main principles on which our national insurance legislation was based were that it should not be restricted by sectional interests, that social insurance should be comprehensive and should provide a minimum income security and that there should be co-operation between the individual and the State. Since 1946 we have endeavoured, first of all by pressing upon our own people, and later, when the legislation was introduced, by supporting it, to encourage its administration throughout the country. It is now better administered than it has ever been in our history. There are fewer grievances in this respect than there have ever been. Yet, instead of building upon that, we are beginning again to tinker with it. As my right hon. Friend said, when large-scale unemployment comes, just as Mr. Oliver Stanley had to give way, so will the then Minister suffer a similar fate unless we stop the tinkering which is now going on.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgau: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) talked of patching and tinkering the National Insurance Scheme. I was delighted to hear that he was such a real advocate of the insurance principle. In so far as my right hon. Friend has increased the number of additional days of benefit under the insurance scheme for those who are unemployed, the hon. Member should welcome such patching and tinkering. I feel that some of his other complaints, although I do not wish to dwell on the matter, would have been better expressed if there had not been such astonishing delay in raising in the Committee the whole question of the lapsing of Section 62.
I shall not detain the Committee very long because I know there are hon. Members opposite who also wish to speak, but I hope the Committee will bear with me for a few moments while I express the doubts and misgivings that I have. I am rather concerned about some of the expressions of opinion which we have heard from hon. Members opposite on the subject of the insurance principle. I feel that the Committee is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) for the very restrained manner in which he discussed a matter which for hon. Members opposite has been the root cause of much grievance in the past.
None the less, I am still in doubt as to what are the right hon. Gentleman's real beliefs on the insurance principle. I hope he will not consider me too academic if I address myself to that rather than to some of the more human issues which are involved. He was very critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who, he said, regarded the unemployed as actuarial figures. But we must at some time make up our minds about the right way to deal with the matter. Is long-term unemployment to be borne on the insurance scheme, or is it to be a direct responsibility of the State?
When we discussed the matter on 6th July, we had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who put the other point of view, the non-insurance principle, the same point of view as that in the Beveridge Report, and that put by Sydney


and Beatrice Webb. I expect many hon. Members have read that great book, "The Problem of Destitution," in which they held that the payments to the unemployed should be the responsibility of the State. I thought that question was decided once for all in 1946 when the National Insurance Act was brought in, and supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale and most hon. Members opposite, with some exceptions, including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.

Mr. Bevan: We have not supported the lapsing of Section 62. There is no reason why Section 62 should lapse merely because the Act says so. This is a legislative Chamber. Every year we have the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill by means of which we continue legislation year after year. Just because a statute contains a termination for an Act or part of an Act, there is not the slightest reason why we should be helpless about it.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride away from it as easily as that. A definite termination date was put in the Act, and it was put there for a reason, and it was supported by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that in the year 1953. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle in 1946, although there is honest disagreement about it. Incidentally, both sides of the dispute can claim the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) at different stages of his career. He spoke in a very different mood when he was the Minister in charge of the Bill.
The effect of the lapsing of Section 62 is that many of the unemployed will fall on National Assistance. That is an issue which has been raised in different forms by hon. Members opposite. For the purposes of this debate, I looked up the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, and I found these words by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale:
Therefore, it is proposed that we shall transfer to the Assistance Board, to be renamed the National Assistance Board, the responsibility for providing the financial help which will still be needed, because there must always stand behind the existing social services a national scheme to assist people in peculiar and special circumstances. There will be a number of persons who will not be eligible

for insurance benefit. There will be some who will not be eligible for unemployment benefit …"——

Mr. Bevan: Even more.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: … and there will be persons who will be the subject of sudden affliction, like fires and floods and circumstances of that kind, who will need to have help from some special organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November. 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1604.]

Mr. Bevan: A very sensible speech.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman then went on to pay a tribute to the National Assistance Board. The point I want to discuss today is that the extended benefit in Section 62 was, in effect, assistance from the State without a means test. Yet those who ordinarily receive assistance are subject to a means test. Where do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite stand on the issue of there being two classes of those who receive assistance? I am thinking of a case in my own constituency of a decent woman whose husband has just gone to prison. Through no fault she finds herself in poverty, and she receives assistance subject to a means test. If there is such a thing as social justice, those who fall out of insurance and then receive assistance from the State should not ask to be relieved from a means test. There should not be one rule for one and another rule for another.
Therefore, I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend, which will increase the number of additional days and will ensure that the overwhelming majority of those who may have the misfortune to be unemployed will be retained within the National Insurance scheme.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) tried to unload upon the Opposition the responsibilities for the lapsing of Section 62. The Government of the day must assume full responsibility. The hon. Gentleman clearly proved that, while the National Assistance Act is a great boon to the people, he at least will ensure that there will always be a use for it.
I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the case he endeavoured to put. He certainly had a very sticky wicket. I appeal to the Government to heed the


words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and to realise the great significance of the policy they are trying to pursue. I warn them that this policy, if pursued, is pregnant with the greatest danger. I will not enter into any hypothetical argument about what may or may not develop in industry or try to interpret the future trend of unemployment due to a recession of trade in America, and so on. I do not even want to discuss the Report on the Availability Question. We will take that Report to the huskings and, when the full significance of it is explained to the people, I am positive that, in Scotland at least, the Conservative Party will not retain one dozen seats.
I want to apply myself to the question of added days. I appeal to the Minister not to pursue his policy any further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South indicated, the Minister's face is turned the wrong way. Well do we remember the Holman Gregory Committee, the May Committee, the Londes-borough Committee and the Rushbury Committee. They are remembered especially by those who were active trade union officials in the days between 1927 and 1932. I served five years on the court of referees in the City of Edinburgh under some of the most able men who ever applied themselves to insurance questions.
There we got an experience which stands us in good stead today. In those days unemployment in Edinburgh was at its height. I want the Minister to face the other way. I have a great respect for him and his Parliamentary Secretary. I want them to turn their faces to the future. The Minister is borrowing from the old compensation law technique. In those days of workmen's compensation we found insurers persuading injured workmen to compound their cases and to accept what they called a "slump" sum settlement.
That is exactly what the Minister is trying to do with the injured worker today. When he has exhausted what is known as the statutory benefit he is then told, "Now you will compound your claim and you will get 10 days' notice," or words to that effect. The man will get notice that he will go on to the National Assistance Board in due course. The Government are taking away from

our people any chance of confidence in insurance. They are simply saying to the people that they are returning again to the old poor law. The people of Scotland are thrifty and industrious and they do not even like the idea of the National Assistance Board, much as we have worked to remove the stigma of the old poor law.
In my constituency there are no poor-houses now. The Chairman of the National Assistance Board who visited Scotland recently complimented our local authorities on the arrangements we have made. The Government are merely asking that further provision should be made for people who are unable to secure employment. It is nonsense to say that we will be able to transfer them all over the country. Today in my constituency there are people who spend as much as £1 per week on transport charges, because they are an industrious people. I appeal to the Government not to pursue this policy but to endeavour to consult some of my right hon. Friends. The Government would find that they would get all cooperation. We on this side are just as anxious as the Government to ensure that there is no discontent in industry. If the Government continue to pursue this policy they will be breeding nothing but ill feeling.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: In the short time at my disposal I want to express, with my hon. and right hon. Friends, our grave apprehension about the meaning of the Regulations under discussion not so much today as in the future. That is of paramount importance. In view of our past experience, and though I hope it never happens, I can envisage a great danger to unfortunate men who are broken and bruised on the wheel of industry and in war. I speak from experience. I have sat on courts of referees on the Ministry side of the table and I have represented unemployed miners on the workmen's side. I have also experienced long periods of unemployment myself.
These Regulations will have a serious economic and moral effect upon the mining fraternity. I was most disturbed when the Minister told us that there were just 1,600 of what he represented to be


hard-core cases. With all my powers of imagination, I cannot see how the Ministry arrived at that figure. There are 200 or 300 cases in my constituency in one village. On 3rd February, 1937, one colliery closed down and threw out of work 1,237 men, myself included, and many of those men have not yet got back to work—to be precise, 127 men, all of them injured in one form or another. They received extended benefits.
With a deep sense of conviction borne of experience, I claim that the Department would be well advised to take back these Regulations and answer the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and others. They should wait until there has been a full review of the working of the National Insurance Act. Then, if it is found, even on an actuarial basis, that some alteration should be made, the Minister should come to the House with a full explanation.
In my opinion, and I must be very careful not to be misunderstood, this is really a sneaking way of getting out of the responsibility for the unemployed, the injured and the discharged soldier, and it ought not to take place. The Minister, the Board and the Advisory Committee ought to be ashamed of themselves in bringing forward such Regulations as these. May I call the attention of the Minister to the particular aspect of the availability for work. This is what the Spens Report says in paragraph 12:
It has been ruled that availability is a question of fact to be considered in the particular circumstances of each case, but at the same time it was pointed out that availability is to a very real extent an attitude of mind.
They will have to do some persuading with me in order to convince me that availability for work is an attitude of mind. It is not. Then it goes on to say:
As a general rule, a claimant must be ready to accept suitable work of any kind normally carried on in the locality.
They should go to some of our coalfields, where they will find no work at all. Many pits have closed within the past few years.
I want to plead with the Minister and his Department to take these Regulations back and examine them again, and, in view of what was said from this side of the House on 11th July and has been said today, come forward with something

a little more humane in its application to the unfortunate victims of industry and of war.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: We have listened to a very factual debate on the effect of the Regulations upon unemployed people in this country, but there are two sets of facts that have been presented—the factual, statistical, cold approach and assessment of the problem by the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, and, on the other hand, the warm, sympathetic appreciative approach from the standpoint of the humanities. Whatever statistical digest may have been presented to the Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary, it will not outweigh the force of our argument, which has behind it the moral sanction that we on this side of the Committee take upon ourselves the responsibility of defending these men against the implications of these Regulations.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was giving his statistical quotations, my reaction was to become more confused and rather stunned. In regard to his presentation of the statistical information, it may well be that his facts are true, in so far as they are supported by statistics, but the hon. Gentleman was motivated by a desire to hide the bigger facts and tragedies that lay below them. He talked a great deal about the increased rights that would accrue with increased benefits to the unemployed, and of the additional days included in the Regulations. Theoretically, his argument was correct, but only theoretically, because, having outlined to the Committee the additional benefits from extended days that will accrue to the unemployed person, in the next cold breath he stated that the average period of unemployment in this country was only three weeks.
Let us be generous and assume that the average period of unemployment is 10 or 20 weeks; let us even assume it is the latter figure The vast majority—one could say 99·5 per cent.—of the persons on the registers at the Employment Exchanges can never benefit from the additional days provided for in these Regulations because they are the people whom we call the "ins and outs." While theoretically correct, from the practical


approach these Regulations have no real application to the situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in a similar vein, spoke about these additional days and the additional benefits to the unemployed, but even the persons registered at the Employment Exchanges are not in the three weeks' group to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. We take them outside the law of averages, and they are outside the category of the average period of unemployment in this country, so that these people do not benefit from these Regulations.
Neither will the man who has been unemployed for a long term benefit from these Regulations or the extended days, because—on the admission of the Minister in the last debate on this subject—of the number of persons who submitted their cases to the tribunal, only 14 per cent. were refused benefit, and, consequently, as far as the others were concerned, the effect of Section 62 has been to give them security of tenure. Therefore, while on the face of it, as far as political window-dressing is concerned, the Minister was right in theory, the effect of these Regulations in practice will be disastrous on the financial position of the weakest, most defenceless, but yet most loyal, section of our people.
While the Parliamentary Secretary has been stressing the rights of this matter, he was blind to the wrongs that will emerge in the application of these Regulations, and what we say tonight, having regard to the fact that a document relating to the availability question has now come to light, is that the Government are sharpening their teeth in this nibbling at the rights of the workers, and that this is a prelude to a major attack that will be made when the Regulations are recast when under examination in the quinquennial valuation.
What is the financial shift in the process now being initiated? Let me give an example. There is a person in my constituency who is at present in receipt of £2 14s. unemployment benefit and of £3 injury benefit because his lungs are riddled with pneumoconiosis. This means that he has an income of £5 14s. a week. But under the new Regulations, owing to the fact that he is in receipt of £3 a week from the Industrial Injuries Fund, his weekly income will be reduced to

£4 9s., a reduction of £1 5s. a week, or £65 a year.
That case is typical of hundreds of similar cases in the South Wales valleys alone. What Government can claim the moral or even the cold statistical right to sanction a Regulation that will reduce the income of a person who has worked in the coalmines for 40 years, an industry, which as other hon. Members have said, is the keystone to the whole British economy?
Those are the cold statistical facts that can be quoted against the cold statistical facts put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. The important result to be discerned in this change is that, whereas at present this man receives 52 per cent. of his total income from the Industrial Injuries Fund, after these Regulations come into operation 67 per cent. of his income will be derived from that fund.
Was it ever intended that the Industrial Injuries Fund, which was specifically set up to give benefits to men who suffered injury and disease while working in the mines, the factories and the workshops, should become the wet nurse to the Treasury? This trend will be accentuated when the Government implement the recommendations of the Committee which has now reported on the question of availability, and, instead of decreasing we shall increase the number of people who are in the category of the person I have just quoted.
We are very disturbed about this for several reasons. The Minister has referred in previous debates to the fact that the hard core numbers 6,000 and that these men are to be found in pockets in various parts of the country, but particularly in the mining communities. Therefore, the effect of the effort of the Minister of National Insurance to rid himself of this problem will only mean transferring it from his Department to that of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
It should be remembered that in South Wales we had demonstrations of 50,000 and 80,000 people against the means test. If the Minister believes that because these people are a small defenceless minority they have become a forgotten army in the coalfields, he is making a very big mistake, and the economy of the country and the standard of living of the people of this country


will pay very dearly for the mistake he is now making.
A conference will be held at Porthcawl on Saturday at which 100,000 miners in South Wales will consider this matter. When the miners of this country realise, as they are bound to do, being realists, what this means, they will say to themselves when they see their colleagues standing in the queue at the offices of the National Assistance Board:
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Owing to the inherent conditions of the coal industry, it is inevitable that as the years go by hundreds of thousands of men will find themselves in that position. I assure the Minister that because of that fear, the revulsion and resentment felt in the coalfield will be heard throughout this country, and that when this debate finishes at 7 o'clock tonight that will not be the end of the conflict on this matter.
Much has been said lately about the imperative need for increasing coal production. How can one expect responsible men on this side of the Committee to ask the miners to increase their efforts in an endeavour to step up production and to work at an increased pace when that means taking the risks to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) referred? Those risks will increase and will swell the lists of men who will become the physical rejects from the mines, and who will eventually be at the mercy of the National Assistance Board.
I have been in the House of Commons for only three years, but I have had the pleasure of listening to the present Minister of National Insurance on a few occasions. I think that he has endeared himself, even to hon. Members on this side, on several important matters; but never have I seen him more uneasy, hesitant and lacking in conviction than when he defended these Regulations during the last debate. If the right hon. Gentleman has pawned his soul to the Treasury, there is one opportunity of which he can take advantage to redeem it from the cold refrigerators in that Department. If these Regulations have to go on, he can dull the edge a little by giving consideration to other matters.
In the Report on the Availability Question, the Committee have recommended that the allowance for subsidiary occupations shall be increased from 3s. 4d. to 6s. 8d.; that is to say, a man with a subsidiary occupation can increase his earnings from £1 to £2 per week. As the committee argue in that paragraph, because of the increased cost of living and because 3s. 4d. has not the social, economic and purchasing value it had when it was fixed, it is necessary to increase it. If the Committee can give that advice to the Government with reference to able-bodied persons, why cannot something similar be done in this case, if the Government are determined at this late hour to proceed with these Regulations?
This is an opportunity for the Minister of National Insurance to free himself from these aspersions. Let him consider the income of disabled persons in the same way as the Advisory Committee considered the earnings of persons employed in subsidiary occupations, and raise it by 100 per cent., to £2 instead of £1. The present disregard is £1. That might alleviate the effects of these Regulations. Even if that concession were made, we are concerned about protecting these men from these effects and we will still persist in our agitation and our position about the operation of these Regulations.
Some people may say that probably this is not universal in its application and that other trade union organisations in industry are not similarly affected. The miners do not care. They fought alone before and they are prepared to fight again; it may be in a very positive way, and it may be in a very negative way that will have very positive effects. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider this matter seriously and to avoid these Regulations being applied to these men.
We, as a Labour Party, believe that men who have received an injury or an accident by reason of their occupation should have consideration. There are hundreds of these men suffering from pneumoconiosis and silicosis who are in death's antechamber, and they are conscious of all this. I have great pleasure and conviction in asking the Minister to consider this major reversal of policy and to save the most defenceless, the weakest, section of the community from these political and social indignities.

6.36 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): This is a half day given over to Supply, so far as my Ministry is concerned, and hon. Members have raised a number of questions. The debate has not taken quite the line which, from reading the newspapers, I had rather expected.

Mr. W. G. Cove: So the right hon. Gentleman has to make an impromptu speech.

Mr. Peake: Yes, I have to make an impromptu speech. The only information I got about it was contained in the "Manchester Guardian" which said:
The decision of the Opposition to have on Thursday a second debate on unemployment benefit within three weeks … arises from the bitterness with which the miners regard the ending of Section 62 of the National Insurance Act of 1946. … The Opposition hopes on Thursday to make a more effective demonstration against the Government than it did on July 6. Mr. Bevan has been chosen to make the case against the new regulations in place of Mr. Griffiths, who found himself to be in an awkward position. …

Mr. T. Brown: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question?

Mr. Peake: I have only a limited time and I have a number of rather important things to say. I do not think any question arises at this stage.
The temper of the debate has been in accordance with our recent debates upon insurance matters. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have approached the subject in a most constructive spirit. I was particularly interested to get the views of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and a number of his colleagues on the back benches on the recently issued report on availability and subsidiary employments. There are not any Regulations, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) seemed to think.
The position regarding the Report is this. Since it was received it has been discussed inter-departmentally. I have been very heavily engaged on the Industrial Injuries Insurance Bill, and I have not so far given any real consideration to the Report. I certainly do not intend to come to any hurried conclusions about it. I am very pleased to have had the views of hon. Gentlemen, and I will study them with great care. I repeat the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that no action will be taken

on the Report until after Parliament resumes in the autumn.

Mr. Brown: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not think there were Regulations, but my past experience has been that when a Report is submitted to this House it is upon that Report that Regulations are assembled. I was calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what the Advisory Committee said about availability, and so on.

Mr. Peake: I can only repeat that I am glad to have the views of hon. and right hon. Members on the Report. If they have any further observations, I hope that they will let me have them. I preserve an open mind upon the subject and have come to no conclusions upon the Report as yet.
Now I come to what I consider to be the main issue of the debate. It is a serious one, because anything which may affect even indirectly the interests of disabled persons, however few in number, is a serious matter and deserves serious attention. The position today, arising from the lapse of Section 62, is the direct consequence of decisions taken by the preceding Labour Government in 1946——

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Peake: —and in 1948. When we debated this last time we were reminded by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that when the Labour Government were working out the details of the National Insurance Act they then deliberately decided not to have unlimited unemployment benefit. What is happening today flows from that decision, with which I personally agree, and to which, at any rate at the time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was a party.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman keeps on making mis-statements. What actually happened was that we decided to put a legal term to the extension of extended benefit and to consider the situation when that legal term lapsed. It is being considered after the customary manner of the Tories.

Mr. Peake: The point that I was making is quite clear. The 1946 Act contained a definite limit on the amount of standard benefit which could be paid, and the right hon. Gentleman was a party


to that decision. A Division was taken in the House and 30 to 40 Members of the party opposite went into the Lobby in favour of unlimited benefit. But the right hon. Gentleman was committed as a Member of the Government at that time to the doctrine that standard benefit should be limited in duration.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the instructions which he issued to the tribunals which were to administer Section 62 said:
The primary object of extended benefit is to make provision for those persons who, owing to the dislocation of industry following the war, are temporarily unable to find employment pending the development of plans under the full employment policy … The life of the provision is accordingly limited to five years from the Appointed Day.
After five years, as we know, the expected dislocation never occurred. We have had full employment, and it is no longer the case that there is any remaining temporary problem arising from the war for which those temporary provisions are required.
The problems that remain with us are permanent—the problems of the disabled, the superannuated, the married women, and persons without a settled way of living. The time has come to face up to a permanent arrangement, and that is what the Government have done. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that the temporary provisions of Section 62 should be re-enacted pending the quinquennial review, when the one thing that is clear is that those temporary arrangements bear no relation whatever to conditions today. Nothing could possibly come out of the review which would justify continuing a temporary arrangement to meet an expected dislocation from a transition from a war to a peace economy which never occurred.
The only way to deal with the kind of case that has been put would be to provide unlimited benefit. Leaving the matter in the hands of tribunals, as is done in Section 62, does not meet the case which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the course of the administration of Section 62 over the past six years the tribunals in fact have disallowed something like 90,000 original

or renewal claims. That shows that this administration by tribunals would not be the system which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale would appear to desire, which is unlimited unemployment benefit.

Mr. Bevan: It is not that at all.

Mr. Peake: What is the policy of the party opposite? Are they in favour of unlimited benefit as a right? [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] If they are, they ought to say so. They did not think so in 1946, nor, so far as I know, did they contemplate introducing it at any time between 1948 and 1951, and the subject is not even mentioned in their latest statement of policy, "Challenge to Britain." Nor was it suggested in the debate which we had a fortnight ago, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) took part. I take it from that that they are opposed as a party to a policy of unlimited benefit.

This question has had to be faced over and over again in the past and no one has ever found a solution to it. It is perfectly true that Sir William Beveridge suggested unlimited benefit, but only subject to the condition that a recipient attended at a work or training centre as required. Both political parties rejected that solution. To offer to the kind of man mentioned today, the sufferer from pneumoconiosis, unlimited benefit on condition that he went daily to a work centre would be repudiated with indignation. I certainly would not be a party to any proposal of that kind.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman asked a question. I will give him the reply. He is confusing the rate of benefit with the extension of benefit. What we have said is that until the employment exchange can present an applicant for extended benefit with a suitable job he should receive the same amount as he would receive of standard benefit if there is no such suitable job available for him. That is the position of this party. It is clear and distinct. In fact, in most instances the tribunals have allowed more than 90 per cent. of the cases that have come before them, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman, by adding up his 90,000, is attempting to suggest to the Committee that his method is more humane.

Mr. Peake: In point of fact, disallowances have been between 12 per cent. and


14 per cent., and I now understand that the right hon. Gentleman wants this system of extended benefit under Section 62 of the Act continued indefinitely.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly.

Mr. Peake: That goes directly contrary to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman when it was introduced.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Peake: We have heard something this evening about the means test. One might imagine that it did not exist in the days of the Labour Government. In fact, as hon. Members know, there has always been a substantial number of people on assistance since the scheme started in 1948. Between July, 1948, and October, 1951, the number of assistance allowances in payment rose by 600,000. It rose from 850,000 to 1,430,000. With dependants, that means in all a total of two million people, and the rate of increase of persons on assistance during those three years 1948 to 1951 was 300,000 a year. These numbers have always included a considerable proportion of those drawing unemployment benefit and extended benefit. Indeed, in some areas 50 per cent. of those on extended benefit have been on assistance as well.
I am not aware that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale did anything about this when he was in office. Although the purchasing power of benefit was continuously falling, the party opposite left the unemployed and the sick untouched by the improvements which they made for certain classes of pensioners in 1951. This made it inevitable that more unemployed and sick had to apply for assistance in order to maintain themselves. If we had taken the same line when we increased pension rates last year, more people on extended benefit would have had to apply for assistance in supplementation of extended benefit at the old rates of 26s. single and 42s. married.
I want to analyse the position of those on extended benefit. They numbered 47,000 at the last count. There had been a fall of 1,000 during the month of June. About 13,000 were already on assistance, so that the lapse of extended benefit will effect no change whatever in their case. The balance of 34,000, of course, are not

a static body. They are not the same people all the time; many people are passing from extended benefit, some to retirement pensions, some on to sickness benefit, some back into jobs, and others have been coming on to extended benefit, and our new added days Regulations will pick up a very large number of those who would have gone on to extended benefit. But there are other categories, such as those superannuated on pension, and married women, who will have no need to seek assistance. The hard core of long-term cases, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members, is a comparatively small figure.

Mr. Harold Finch: There are the disabled.

Mr. Peake: I am coming on to the disabled in a moment, and I have got some very good news for them. Of the disabled persons, many will very likely qualify for sickness benefit or unemployability supplement.

Mr. Finch: Even though they are partially disabled?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman knows that until quite recently, certain deductions of dependants' allowances have been made from sickness benefit and un-employability supplement which were not made from extended benefit, and people have been struggling to remain in the extended benefit field to get these allowances. I have recently revoked that disqualification, and they will now get as much benefit if they transfer to sickness benefit or unemployability supplement as they have been getting on extended benefit.

Mr. Finch: Where a man is partially disabled and is available for some work, although it may be difficult for him to get it, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that such a man is entitled to sickness benefit? Those are the men with whom we are concerned today under these Regulations.

Mr. Peake: The type of case of which I am speaking is that of the man who has been struggling to remain in the employment field because he could thereby get the higher rate of benefit which he could not get if he transferred to sickness benefit. There are also cases of men who until recently would have


gone to the unemployability supplement had dependants' allowances been payable with the unemployability supplement. The Industrial Injuries Act which has recently passed through the House, as the hon. Gentleman knows, provides for dependants' benefits in full with the unemployability supplement.
I have gone very carefully into this matter. There will undoubtedly be some cases of diminution of income, but I can assure the Committee that there will be no cases of hardship. The standard of living of those on assistance has risen considerably in recent years. The scale rates of assistance are now nearly double what they were in 1946—they are 94 per cent. higher—while the cost of living over that period has risen by 40 per cent. The result is an improvement in the real standard of living of those on assistance of at least 25 per cent. over the last six years. Assistance scales as a result of last year's improvements now provide a standard of living higher than at any time during the Labour Government's tenure of office. Not only this; the cases which have been quoted will, of course, over and above the more generous provisions now made by National Assistance, get the benefit of the disregard for workmen's compensation or industrial injury benefit.
Today's "Daily Herald" speaks of the
harshness and humiliation of the Means Test
and
this shameless lapse into inhumanity.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman did not take that line this afternoon. After all, the right hon. Gentleman sponsored the National Assistance Act, and conducted it in its passage through this House.

Mr. Bevan: And abolished the poor law.

Mr. Peake: The National Assistance Act established the National Assistance Board, and everybody is agreed that the National Assistance Board have done a fine job and that their administration is tactful and humane. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be proud of the fact that he was connected with the establishment of the National Assistance Board.
Let me make it plain that this change which is being carried through involves

no question of economy. Our decision is based on considerations of principle which go to the very root of the insurance scheme. Hon. Members must face the fact that it is impossible to reconcile unlimited unemployment benefit with the conception of a limited insurance contribution. It is of vital interest to preserve the integrity of the insurance principle with benefits as of right. The Labour Government rejected the idea of unlimited benefit. They took power instead, in the Act of 1946, to provide a permanent system of added days based on the insured person's contribution record. They did not use that power, though they could have done so at any time between 1948 and 1951, and it has been left to this Government——

Mr. Bevan: To take advantage of it.

Mr. Peake: —to provide a most generous system of added days.
Mention has been made of men suffering from pneumoconiosis, and I want to deal specially with this question.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, may I put this question to him? He has paid a great tribute to the administration of the National Assistance Board. Is it the intention of the Government that National Assistance should continue to be so administered?

Mr. Peake: Most certainly. I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman.
There has been mention, particularly by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), of men suffering from pneumoconiosis, and it has rather been implied that the Government in general, and I in particular, are unsympathetic to these people. It was my privilege in 1943 to introduce the first comprehensive scheme of compensation for pneumoconiosis, and I was also able at that time to do something which, under workmen's compensation law, had never been done before, and that was to pick up old cases going back to 1934. Since I came to the Ministry of National Insurance in 1951, there has been no single question that has occupied my attention more closely than that of pneumoconiosis.
I am administering the great schemes of national and industrial injuries insurance on the same lines as my Socialist predecessors. The main change is that I am administering them with much better


rates of benefit than existed under the Socialist Administration. There is another matter arising directly out of my administration about which I want to say a further word. Many sufferers from pneumonoconiosis left the prescribed industries before the Silicosis Scheme of 1934 and the main Pneumoconiosis Act of 1943 were passed. Others failed to make their claims in time under the old workmen's compensation law.
These men have been rightly described by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) as the forgotten men of industry, their health broken by an incurable disease, and without compensation of any kind. These are very hard cases. The very first Bill introduced by my Department after the present Government was formed dealt with cases of total incapacity in this field. It provided a weekly payment of benefit during life, and lump sum payments to dependants where the disease resulted in death. Two thousand five hundred cases have already been dealt with.
I was pressed on all sides on that occasion—notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who has been assiduous in this matter—to go further and provide for old cases of partial incapacity. I undertook to discuss the question—which undoubtedly bristles with administrative and technical difficulties—with the T.U.C. One of the difficulties has been the lack of accurate knowledge about the number of cases involved. It has been variously estimated at between 5,000 and 30,000. No doubt the greater number of cases that exist are in the South Wales coalfields. I am very happy now to be able to inform the Committee——

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. There was an occasion when the Labour Government were in office when one of my hon. Friends, then a Minister, wished to make an announcement about impending legislation in the course of a debate on Supply. The Minister, I believe, is now proposing to make an announcement which requires legislation, at the end of a debate on Supply. Are we permitted to discuss the statement he makes, if he makes it?

The Chairman: He has not made it yet, but if he proceeds to advocate legislation, I shall stop him. Up to now I

have seen no reason to stop him. He may be going to do something by regulation, which is quite in order.

Mr. Peake: I am quite aware of the risks of being "no-balled" by the Chairman in Committee of Supply, but I was reporting to the Committee purely administrative actions of mine resulting from discussions which I had had with the T.U.C, and I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would be interested to hear them. I shall go back to the beginning of the sentence in which I was interrupted.
I am very happy to be able to inform the Committee that, given the good will of all concerned, including the trade unions, we see our way to overcoming the difficulties involved. I therefore look forward eagerly to taking the necessary action and thereby completing a task which I began in 1943. Not only will my action give some much-needed relief in the hardest cases of all, but it will do away with a long-standing and justifiable sense of injustice.

Mr. Bevan: I am really concerned with trying to preserve a point of order and trying to preserve what has been a long-established practice in the House. Does what the right hon. Gentleman has said involve the introduction of legislation?

The Chairman: I am not able to answer that question. If it does involve legislation, it cannot be discussed.

Mr. Bevan: It ought not to be mentioned.

The Chairman: If it can be done by administrative action it is quite in order.

Mr. Bevan: I am asking a question. This is at the end of our debate. [Interruption.] It is no good; I am not to be bullied by anybody. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement, the significance of which we cannot understand at the moment. We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman if the step which he has indicated involves legislation.

The Chairman: I have been asked that question three times. I do not in the least mind being bullied. I have answered the question and I shall answer it again. If what the right hon. Member said involves legislation, its discussion cannot be continued. If it can be done by administration it is perfectly in order.

Mr. Peake: Everybody except the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale appears to be highly delighted at the report which I have been able to give of the outcome of my conversations with the T.U.C. My announcement should give some cause for rejoicing in the coalfields, and particularly in South Wales. I hope that it will be duly reported to the conference at Porthcawl, about which we heard something in the course of this debate.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I appreciate what the Minister has indicated, from which we must infer a great deal, but I have not heard him refer to the man I quoted, who is going to lose £65 a year and who suffers from pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Peake: Earlier in my speech I mentioned the fact that in certain cases there would be certain reductions of income as the result of the lapse of extended benefit. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is advocating the re-enactment of Section 62, which equally requires legislation. I hope that the report which I have been able to make to the Committee will give satisfaction in the coalfields, particularly in South Wales. Let it be noted that the only person who is displeased about it is the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Beran: What is it?

Mr. Peake: These men have not beer, forgotten, at any rate by a Conservative Government. I trust that on this ground alone, if for no other, the Committee will reject any proposal to reduce my salary, which, let me remind the Committee, is already £1,000 less than that drawn by my predecessors.
My hon. Friends can go into the Lobby, if a Division is now challenged, with a clear conscience and, indeed, even with a song in their hearts. In doing so they will be endorsing the Government's policy, which is to fill the gaps left by our predecessors in 1946, and to provide the most generous system of insurance benefit which this country has ever known.

Mr. Bevan: In addition to the involuntary reduction of £1,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has suffered, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £207,780,000 be granted for the said services."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 236: Noes, 256.

Division No 221.]
AYES
[7.9 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Clunie, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Albu, A. H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R. H. S
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hale, Leslie


Baird, J.
Daines, P.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glanvil (Colne Valley


Balfour, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead. W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W


Bartley, P.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W.


Bence, C. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Deer, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Benson, G.
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, S.


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Donnelly, D. L.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)


Blackburn, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Herbison, Miss M


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R


Blyton, W. R.
Edelman, M.
Holman, P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Bowden, H. W
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hubbard, T. F


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, B.


Carmichael, J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D P T


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Freeman. Peter (Newport)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, James
Jenkins, R H (Stechford)




Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paget, R. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Keenan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kenyon, C.
Parker, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


tee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Popplewell, E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thornton, E.


Lewis, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pryde, D. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Usborne, H. C.


McInnes, J.
Reid, William (Camlachle)
Viant, S. P.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McLeavey, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, D.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, William
West, D. G.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Manuel, A. C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mason, Roy
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wigg, George


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mlkardo, Ian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchison, G. R
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Willey, F. T.


Moody, A. S.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morley, R.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mort, D. L.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Murray, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Nally, W.
Steele, T.
Yates, V. F.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.



Oldfield, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Mr. James Johnson and Mr. Wallace.


Oswald, T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Godber, J. B.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gough, C. F. H


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gower, H. R.


Arhuthnot, John
Craddosk, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimond, J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Baker, P. A. D.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harden, J. R. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baxter, A. B.
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hay, John


Bishop, F. P.
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Edward


Black, C. W.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Henderson, John (Catheart)


Boothby, Sir R. J G.
Duthie, W. S.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bowen, E. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, B. R.
Finlay, Graeme
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fleelwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Holt, A. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hope, Lord John


Bullard, D. G.
Foster, John
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Burden, F. F. A
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Horobin, I. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Campbell, Sir David
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Carr, Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gammans, L. D.
Hudson. W. R. A. (Hull, N.)







Hutchison, Lt-Com Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hylton-Foster H. B. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Snadden, W. McN.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Jennings, R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Speir, R. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Neave, Airey
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholls, Harmar
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stevens, G. P.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kerr, H. W.
Noble, Cmdr A. H. P.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife E.)


Lambert, Hon G
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col M.


Langford-Holt, J. A
Nutting, Anthony
Storey, S.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim N)
Summers, G. S.


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon N)
Teeling, W.


Lindsay, Martin
Osborne, C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Partridge, E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peake, Rt Hon. O.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turner, H. F. L.


Low, A. R. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, R. H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


McAdden, S. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Wade, D. W.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Mackie, J. H (Galloway)
Redmayne, M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Watkinson, H. A.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wellwood, W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


Maude, Angus
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Scott, R. Donald
York, C.


Mellor, Sir John
Scott-Miller Cmdr. R



Molson, A. H. E.
Shepherd, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £207,781,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Added Days Procedure for unemployment Benefit for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:

Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. 1953–54



£


Class V, Vote 10, National Insurance and Family Allowances (Revised Sum)
118,037,000


Class X, Vote 5, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
4,724,000


Class V, Vote 11, National Assistance Board
85,020,000


Total
£207,781,000

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum not exceeding £39,697,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Position of Conscientious Objectors for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:

Civil Estimates. 1953–54. Ministry of Defence Estimate, 1953–54, Navy Estimates, 1953–54, Army Estimates, 1953–54, and Air Estimates 1953–54



£


Class V, Vote 8, Ministry of Labour and National Service
12,775,000


Ministry of Defence
13,012,000


Navy Estimates, Vote 12. Admiralty Office
6,910,000


Army Estimates, Vote 3. War Office
3,020,000


Air Estimates, Vote 3, Air Ministry
3,980,000


Total
£39,697,000

—[Mr. Ward.]

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

7.20 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I rise to draw attention to the position of conscientious objectors. Let me begin with a personal word. I was a conscientious objector during the First World War. I served sentences of one month, of three months, of one year, and of two years. I do not now hold the absolute pacifist views I held then, but I regard it as a moral obligation of those who went through that experience then to stand by the claims of young men today who are adopting a similar attitude.
The issue which we are discussing raises the very fundamental principle of the relationship of the State to the individual. The State now intervenes in nearly every aspect of life, but there is one sphere in human personality which this Committee has recognised to be free from that domination by the State. It is the sphere of human personality where there is the issue of right or wrong; where there is the issue of moral conviction; where there is the issue of conscience. I begin by recognising that on both sides of this Committee this principle has been accepted. Indeed, I suppose the noblest speech that has ever been delivered in this Chamber on this subject was by Lord Hugh Cecil from the Conservative benches.
This acceptance of the principle of the rights of conscience has caused Great Britain to lead the whole world in the liberality of its exemptions of conscientious objectors. The figures are remarkable. Between June, 1939, at the time of the Military Training Act, and December, 1952, 45,585 boys and young men were exempted by the tribunals. The number is probably larger because that figure relates only to the local tribunals, and nearly 50 per cent. of the cases which go to the appellate tribunals are varied. These figures not only reflect the liberal attitude of our State towards the conscientious objector, but they also, I suggest, in a very remarkable way reflect the sincerity of the men who have made applications for exemption on this ground. The sincerity of these men has been recognised by the tribunals in 45,000 cases out of 64,981 who have applied.
Nevertheless, while giving that recognition to our system, I must say that serious anomalies and defects remain, and it is clear that the present tribunal system is inadequate in recognising the sincerity of many of those who go before the tribunals. The figures show that up to December, 1952, 1,119 men have been court-martialled in the Forces for refusing orders on conscientious grounds during the same period, and 338 were court-martialled more than once. During the same period also, 5,576 went under civil prosecution.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I would point out on behalf of my own Department that if a man wants to go out as a conscientious objector, the Army certainly, and, I think, the other two Services, have no option but to court-martial him in order that he may have that opportunity.

Mr. Brockway: I was not complaining of the procedure of the military Forces. Obviously, if a man has been declared not to be sincere by the tribunals and he goes into the Armed Forces, the Armed Forces must act in that way, and the plea which I am making is that the defect in the tribunal system, which means that such a large number of these men go into the Armed Forces, does require the attention of this Committee.
I do not think there is any doubt that the majority of the men who go to the courts martial and who undergo civil prosecution are sincere. In war time particularly the attitude of the conscientious objector brings a contumely which it does require some moral strength to meet, and even in peace time the effects upon employment and upon the prospects of work are very considerable, and my plea tonight is that necessary revisions should be made to the present system. They have been made on a number of occasions in the past. The original military training and military service legislation required temporary service, but, unfortunately, conscription is becoming regarded as a permanent system, and I believe that we ought to learn from all these years.
I want first to deal with the tribunals. I have given the Minister the points which I wish to raise under this heading, and they are five. First, the conflicting interpretations of the Act by the


tribunals. The greatest issue here is whether the Act exempts only those who are absolute pacifists, or whether it exempts others as well. I was representing a conscientious objector at the London Appellate Tribunal when the Minister of Labour and National Service took a test case upon this issue. He won the case in the sense that the man I was representing was not granted exemption, but lost the case in the sense that the Appellate Tribunal declined to say that conscientious objection should be limited only to the pacifists in all circumstances.
I think that one need spend little time in arguing that point to the Committee. The objection can be conscientious even if it does relate to particular wars. If any one of us had been asked to fight for Germany in the last war, we would have refused and that refusal would have been through a deep conviction which was conscientious. In the case of this Appellate Tribunal it is recognised that conscience can be regarded as sincere in that way. Nevertheless, although the London Appellate Tribunal has accepted that principle, the Fulham local tribunal persistently refuses to accept it. Judge Hargreaves has used these words:
This tribunal has always taken the view that we cannot grant exemption to persons who have objection to particular wars, but the objection must be to military service as such, regardless of whom we are fighting. I know that fighting a particular war may involve conscience, but our view of the wording of the Act is such that we have no power to grant exemption in such cases.
The effect is that the Fulham tribunal rules in that way, the cases go on to the London Appellate Tribunal and the London Appellate Tribunal reverses the decisions. It has varied 51 per cent. of the decisions which have come from local tribunals on that and on other points. Therefore, my first plea to the Minister is that he should seek to secure that these tribunals, particularly when a lead is secured from the Appellate Tribunal, do interpret the Act in one way.
The second point which I want to raise is that of the personnel of the tribunal. I admit that I know of no more difficult task than for men to have to sit and judge whether someone is sincere or not. I acknowledge that I have very frequently represented these men, and I have been impressed by the effort of under-

standing and of sympathy which has been shown to them. But what one has experienced, particularly at the London Appellate Tribunal, has not been true of all tribunals. I will leave it to others to quote particular places, but I want to put to the Minister one special point in this respect.
This effort of understanding and sympathy does demand that a member of the tribunal should be very sensitive and very responsive in his mind and in his actions. I suggest to the Minister that some of the tribunal members who have been doing this work for many years, some of them since 1939, have lost that sensitivity and responsiveness. If I may use the word, they are becoming rather "stale" in their jobs. Only last month the chairman of a local tribunal died at the age of 83, and those who have gone before that particular tribunal will appreciate the point which I am trying to make.
The membership of the local tribunal is for one year. The decision as to whether the appointment is to be renewed is in the hands of the Ministry's Regional Controller. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should secure advice from local people attending the tribunal, from ministers of religion, from social workers and, maybe, from members of the local university staff; and that there should be a review of the set up of the present personnel.
The third point which I want to make concerns the venue of these tribunals. Again and again, as these Measures have gone through the House, we have had the promise from the Ministry that the proceedings at these tribunals should be friendly, informal, intimate and without the rigidities of the ordinary court of law. I acknowledge straight away that many of the tribunals I have attended have been carried on in that kind of spirit. But I want to draw the attention of the Minister to some exceptions.
The first is the tribunal which meets in the Fulham Town Hall, a large hall, with the chairman and the other members of the tribunal sitting on the mayoral and aldermanic bench with a well of space before them. A young man appearing before them is quite lost in this vast area and it is impossible in those circumstances to get a friendly, responsive atmosphere in which one can truly judge personality. I take the case of the Glasgow local


tribunal. It meets in the criminal court rooms with the officers of the court in attendance, and it is inevitable that they tend to treat applicants in a similar way to their treatment of defendants. I take the Leeds local tribunal. It meets in the county court, the members occupying the judge's bench, and a uniformed policeman is in attendance. It is absolutely impossible there to have the informal atmosphere which we were promised.
The fourth point to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister also relates to the loss of informal atmosphere in some of these tribunals. The Leeds and Glasgow local tribunals and the Edinburgh appellate tribunal require that the oath should be taken from all who appear before them. Under the Act, this is permissive to the chairman. It may be that the chairman if he feels he can gain the truth better by the administration of the oath should have the right to require the oath to be taken. I have been to many tribunals where that has not been done, but in these cases it is done invariably, and I am suggesting that it destroys that informal atmosphere which was promised to us.
My fifth and last point in relation to the tribunals to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister is the decreasing extent to which absolute exemptions are given. In one sense, the demand that unconditional exemption should be in response to conscience is a logical thing. It was an attitude which I took during the First World War, and which many of us took, that if were not prepared to go into the trenches under conscription we ought not to take any job at home under the same conscription law. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) even declined to accept as a condition of exemption his own teaching job. That is a logical and complete attitude. Between June, 1939, and December, 1948, although it was a war period, 2,937 exemptions of that kind were given. Between 1949 and 1952 only 79 exemptions were given by local tribunals. The percentage during the war was 4·7; the percentage since the war has been 2·7.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Percentage of what?

Mr. Brockway: Of those who received unconditional exemption.

Mr. Nicholson: As against what?

Mr. Brockway: Against alternative service, non-combatant service and other forms. Last year the percentage of those who received unconditional exemption fell to 2·2. From what I know of them, many of the men who take this attitude are the most sincere among the ranks of the conscientious objectors.
I now pass to the continued practice—though, I readily admit, it is on a much smaller scale—of the cat-and-mouse treatment of objectors. Even during the war I defended one man five times at courts-martial. He had gone through repeated periods of imprisonment, and only after that was his sincerity recognised. The position now is a great deal better. A man in the Forces is not court-martialled more than twice, and then he is discharged.
But there are frequent cases of men who refuse medical examination before they go into the Forces. It is a logical attitude that, if one objects to military service, one ought not to be content to take the medical examination to enter military service. In these instances there are still frequently three summonses for refusal and three punishments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the Committee. That would only follow after the boy had been to the lower tribunal and the appellate tribunal.

Mr. Brockway: Certainly. That is my whole case, that the tribunals are not yet operating adequately, that we still have sincere people passing through them. I had hoped that the statistics that I have given were an indication of that.
With regard to men who refuse medical examination, the Minister of Labour and National Service has said that punishment will not be inflicted more than twice except where sentences are derisory, such as a very small fine. The Stratford and Acton courts are imposing such fines when medical examination is refused. At the Stratford court, the first time the fine is £10, the second time £15 and the third time £20. At the Acton court, the first time the fine is £10, the second time £20 and the third time £30.
Frankly, I very much dislike the association of conscience with the payment of a monetary fine as a means of not serving


in the Armed Forces. I ought to add that these men suffer not only the fine. They become practically unemployable. Their position is so uncertain that they cannot keep jobs. They always have the prospect of prison before them. The suffering which they undergo is very much more than that inflicted by a monetary fine.
That leads me to add that there is an extraordinary difference in the sentences of imprisonment imposed by other courts who do not impose fines. They vary from one month to 12 months. Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham almost invariably impose sentences of nine months. Glasgow imposes sentences of sometimes 12 months and sometimes six months. I ask the Minister to look into the whole matter again. It is clear that not only is there inconsistency but the cat-and-mouse principle is still being applied.
I now turn to a major defect in our present system. It relates to National Service men who pass into National Service at the age of 18 for two years and then have to do three and a half years' part-time service. It is now proposed that they should be in the Reserve for five years during a national emergency. The plea I wish to make is that men who have passed through National Service and have reached the age of 20 should have the opportunity to go before a tribunal as conscientious objectors before they do their three and a half years' part-time service. That principle has already been recognised in the case of Z reservists who are called up part-time. Why should it not be recognised in the case of these men? The formative years of one's mind and attitude do not end at the age of 20; they are between the ages of 18 and 25. The number of men concerned at present is small. There are 16 men who have gone through their National Service, have been called up for part-time service and have refused. Twelve have been court-martialled, and the Advisory Committee have recommended discharge from the Army in nine instances.
I wish to draw attention to a typical case. Stephen Wyatt, of Stretford, Manchester, was ordered to report for part-time service on 23rd August, 1952; did so; refused to put on uniform; was put under arrest: was released at the end of 14 days; summoned to court-martial on 27th September: was sentenced to 112

days' civil imprisonment; the advisory tribunal recommended his discharge on 2nd December and it took effect, after he had completed his sentence, on 10th December. That man came to his conscientious objection views after he had done his two years' National Service. He joined at 18 and his ideas developed afterwards. Surely the Minister would agree that he should have the opportunity to go to the tribunal without all the procedure of refusing orders and being court-martialled which is now involved. The Minister is to have an opportunity to carry out this proposal. Lord Chorley is introducing a Bill in. another place to carry out this suggestion, and I hope very much that the Government will support it.
I want to draw very special attention to the case of the boys who join the Forces when they are 14½ years and 15 years of age. They join until they are 18 and thereafter up to a period of 12 years. Public attention has been drawn to this matter, particularly since the formation of the Infantry Regimental Boys' Battalion in 1946 and their service there is limited to six years and three years in the Reserve. There are 12,000 boys involved. They have no opportunity at all of going to the tribunals to express conscientious objection if such an objection develops at 18.

Mr. Head: It is a fact, as the hon. Gentleman may know, that not a single instance of this having occurred has yet become known.

Mr. Brockway: I am sorry, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman two instances. One concerns a boy, R. Garbutt of Birmingham, and I have left the details of that case with my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), who will give the details in his speech later on. The other is Daniel Lee of Colchester. He enlisted with the Army in 1948 at the age of 15 and was enlisted for 12 years' service from the age of 18. He developed objection on Christian grounds, refused orders and was sentenced on 7th February to 28 days' detention. When he reached 19 years of age he disobeyed orders again and was sentenced to 94 days' detention on 9th March. The advisory tribunal on 18th May recommended his discharge.

Mr. George Wigg: The case which my hon. Friend is quoting does not arise from boy's service at all.

Mr. Brockway: Oh, yes, it does.

Mr. Wigg: But he has told the Committee that this man was sentenced to detention when he was 19 years of age, which was a year after he passed from boy's to men's service. What my hon. Friend is putting forward is the case of a Regular soldier who develops conscientious objection. It is not a question of a boy at all.

Mr. Brockway: I am giving the case of a boy who enlisted at the age of 15. My appeal to this House is that boys who join the Army at so young an age should have an opportunity to go before a tribunal. This boy of 15 was to serve for 12 years. He developed his objection on Christian grounds, not when he was 19 but before he was 19, though his court-martial took place on 7th February when he had reached the age of 19. I submit that illustrates my case.

Mr. Head: Mr. Head: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brockway: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me.

Mr. Head: It is not really a boy's case, because the whole point seems to be that, although boys can change their minds during the period between a boy's and a man's service, the case the hon. Gentleman is quoting is the case of a Regular soldier. This youth was over 18 years of age, and we are talking about two different things. We are confusing the issue. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that a boy between 14 and 18 years of age should have the opportunity of saying that he has now become a conscientious objector. After 18 such a youth becomes a Regular soldier, and if we treat him in the way suggested by the hon. Member we will have to alter the whole system for Regular soldiers.

Mr. Brockway: The case I am arguing is that boys between 14 and 15 should have an opportunity to go before the appeals tribunal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has argued that as this boy has reached 18 years of age he has passed the period of a boy's service and has become a Regular soldier. I will now give him a case which fits in exactly with the plea I am trying to put to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has returned to me the details of the case

to which I briefly referred earlier. This is the case of R. Garbutt, of Birmingham, who in July, 1951, at the age of 17 volunteered for the R.A.F. for five years' service and four years in the Reserve. He served 15 months and went absent without leave in October, 1952. He was 18 and he had conscientious objections. He was arrested in November, court-martialled in January, 1953, and sentenced to 112 days' detention. The tribunal recommended his discharge on 27th April when he had already served the full sentence. There is a boy who took that action when he was 18 years of age.

Mr. Head: I am sorry to go on with this, but here again that is not a boy. The lad joined on a Regular enlistment at 17 years of age and that is not boy's service; it is a normal R.A.F. engagement for boys of 17.

Mr. Brockway: I am not going to delay by arguing that point which does not seem to me to be of very much importance. The appeal which I am making is that boys of 14, 15, 16 or 17 should have the opportunity to go before a C.O. tribunal, an opportunity which is now denied them for they must go through the procedure of refusing orders, being court-martialled and serving a term of imprisonment before they have the right to go before the tribunal. This matter has been considered by the Select Committee and they regarded the necessary legislation as too complex. I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that while the legal form can be complex the procedure is simple and is that which is applied in other cases.
Finally—because I apologise for having taken up the time of the Committtee at some length—I want to urge that the British Government, which has taken a lead in this issue, should now take a lead in the international field. Fifteen of the 57 countries which have compulsory service make some provision for conscientious objection. In the case of West Germany it is actually a part of the Federal constitution, for Article 4 states that no German shall be obliged to perform
war service with arms.
My final appeal tonight is that Great Britain, having taken the lead in this more liberal treatment of those who are conscientious objectors, should seek to get


the same principle adopted and added to the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 of which already states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This is the heart of the difference between the totalitarian and libertarian States. Based on our own practice, I should like to see Britain take this challenge to all the nations of the world.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: I rise for a few moments to bring to the attention of the Committee the particular case in which I am interested. I am not and was not a conscientious objector. I served in the last war without distinction; in fact, I may say with accuracy that I was one of those whose presence in the Army lengthened the war rather than shortened it. I raise this particular case because I have been rather shocked by the injustice, or perhaps it would be better to call it lack of imagination, of those who drew up the National Service Act. As I was not responsible for that, I suppose I may be allowed to say that I regard some aspects of the treatment of conscientious objectors under that Act as rather unimaginative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) dealt with the case of the conscientious objector who served his National Service and found afterwards that he had developed a conscientious objection. I was extremely surprised to find that there was no provision in the Act for a man who changed his mind. It seemed to be assumed by those who drafted the Bill that there were no intellectual processes at all; that the minds of our population were static after a certain date or event. It was rather like saying that if a man does not believe in divorce before he is married, he cannot have one afterwards. It is ludicrous to say that, unless a man changes his mind before he is called up, there shall be no provision for him to change his mind afterwards without suffering a period of imprisonment.
After all, there were many men who joined up willingly in the days of 1914, when the nation was seized with war hysteria, speaking generally, and it was the carnage of the 1914–18 war that made many of them conscientious objectors. As a matter of fact, I was much influenced

by one of those men after the 1914–18 war when I was about 18. I would have been a Regular soldier and a man if I had been in the Army at that time, but I was still intellectually a boy. One of those men, whose mind had been changed by the dreadful slaughter in Flanders and who had come to the conclusion that war was wrong, persuaded me that conscientious objection was the right attitude for all men to take.
My attitude changed when Japan invaded Manchuria. I did not take the view of the literal Christian, who believes that one should literally obey the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Incidentally, one of the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches who tends to sneer at conscientious objectors is a good Christian, and I heard him deliver a sermon in church on one occasion when he stressed the importance of all of us obeying the Ten Commandments. He said that if humanity in Britain today literally followed the Ten Commandments, we would not have the trouble we have in the world. He did not say that he did not include the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill," yet he is one of those who is most bitter against conscientious objectors who believe that one literally should not kill.
We are all inconsistent in our behaviour sometimes, but I have never been able to understand why it is that some hon. Members should sneer at conscientious objectors, the assumption being that they are cowards. When a man describes another as a coward he tells us a lot about himself. Any psychiatrist will say that usually when a man calls another a thief, he is a thief himself, and when he calls another a coward, he is a coward himself. After all, we are all cowards, and there is not a single hon. or right hon. Member who has not been a coward at some time or another.
I was taught at school that there are plenty of men who have physical courge but few who have moral courage, and we find throughout our lives that there are plenty of people who can show great courage when it is merely physical but who will not say boo to a goose when it came to standing up for their opinion against a mass of opposition. In fact, moral courage is definitely a rarer human virtue than physical courage. I have known many conscientious objectors in


my time, but have never found one who lacked that great virtue of moral courage. I do not deny that there may be some, but all those I have met have been absolutely sincere and, in the main, prepared to go to the stake for their convictions, if necessary.
I know a young man who has the honour of being one of my constituents. He comes of a distinguished family and I have been in correspondence with the Admiralty about him. Why he does not want to serve in the Navy, I cannot understand, because that is what I have always wanted to do. They refused my services, which shows the great wisdom of the Navy. This young man served his two years' National Service and then discovered, I believe sincerely, that he had developed conscientious objections. So when he was called up for his annual fortnight's service he declined to serve and was sentenced to 42 days' detention.
Although, as the Minister replied, he was not statutorily entitled to appear before the appellate tribunal, arrangements were made for his appearance before a tribunal, but somehow or other he did not convince them of the genuineness of his objections. He told me that he was dissatisfied with the proceedings, and that in fact he did not feel he had a fair show. Even so, he chose to go to prison rather than serve his fortnight's service.
This year again he was served with a training notice. He refused to obey it, was arrested and was sentenced to 90 days' detention on 27th June. Again he elected to appear before the tribunal and his sentence has been suspended. He has been under detention for just a month, and the tribunal does not sit till 30th July. According to a letter which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has sent me, it is probable that he will not have to serve a second sentence, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible for a young man, who has demonstrated his sincerity by preferring to go to prison instead of serving his fortnight's annual service, to go direct to the tribunal without having to undergo the ignominy and the suffering and the interruption of his employment which is inevitable when he is put into detention again before the tribunal meets.
It is time that we put right this defect in our legislation about National Service men, and I hope that, as a result of this debate, something will be done.

8.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I should like to follow for a minute or two the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) who has spoken about cowardice. If we are honest with ourselves we shall admit that we are all cowards at heart. Contrary to popular fiction and even classical fiction, I do not believe that there is such a person as a man or a woman who does not know fear. We are all afraid at certain times in our lives. Little boys, when they start playing football, are first of all afraid to tackle a larger opponent on the other side. Equally, small boys are afraid when they have to stand up to speak in public for the first time. Those fears follow us into our adult life as well. The people who are exceptionally brave are those who have battled with these fears at close quarters and have overcome them. So much for the charge made by many of us that conscientious objectors may be cowards.
I have the honour to represent a constituency in which there is a large body of Quakers, most admirable people with exceedingly fine religious and moral principles. Many of those people are conscientious objectors. Also many of them, in spite of that, have refused what they look upon as strictly military service but have undertaken duties which expose them at certain times to even greater dangers. I need not enlarge on that. All hon. Members of this Committee know of the many cases of Quakers, and others, who have refused strict military service but have been examples of outstanding bravery as stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers, and any other similar para-military organisations.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) spoke of the powers of the State over the individual in this modern world of ours. I agree that the State has tremendous powers over the individual, but I should like to stress that in a modern and highly organised State—in fact in the modern world as it is today—there is a corollary to that:


it is the responsibility of each and every man for the common safety of his State or even for a group of nations. I should like the Committee to dwell on that thought for a little while.
People talk with a certain amount of extraordinary conceit of being pacifist. Are we not all of us, all sensible and sincere men and women, pacifists in that we hate war and we would do all that we could to stop it? I can see nothing funny, unusual or idealistic in being a pacifist. It is an aim towards which we are all striving. I do not think that people can stand up and say "I am a pacifist," and expect to be treated differently from the rest of us.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough mentioned certain points on which he felt existing legislation should be altered. On some of the points I agree entirely. It is quite wrong that monetary fines should be exacted from those who refuse a military duty if the tribunals consider them insincere in their feelings. There should always be conditional exemptions—the condition where those who are really brave and who feel very strongly on this matter have the option of doing some equally unpleasant duty as the duty of military service. I refer, of course, to those difficult and dangerous jobs which some of the Quaker people did in both world wars.
The regulations should be examined. There is a great danger that it may be made more easy for people not only to be cowards but to escape from dangers which all of us have to face by pretending that they are something when they really do not know what they mean—something which they cannot really express in their own minds and thoughts or describe to the tribunals which they face. I suggest that the law concerning conscientious objectors should be most carefully reviewed. In many directions it is most desirable that it should be tightened to avoid those loopholes where people who have not sincere moral and religious objections can escape without performing military duties.

8.15 p.m.

Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I preface my remarks by gladly acknowledging that in my opinion Great Britain has probably the most enlightened standpoint of all the nations on this question.

I say that despite the fact that I realise that there is considerable substance in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fermer Brockway) in his criticism of the administration of our legislation on the question of conscience.
My reason for intervening is to deal with what is to me the completely mysterious anomaly of those who form conscientious objections during or after their National Service. I refer to those who form conscientious objections to military service between the ages of 18 and 20 or sometimes even in the middle twenties. The acceptance by the whole personality of all that is involved in conscientious objection is a very varied experience which involves different elements. It involves an intellectual element. One might well have a great emotional experience. Then there is the element of volition—the act of will; the act of decision; one clear-cut decision.
This makes it very difficult for any tribunal perfectly to administer what we would call equity and justice. While by and large, despite the exceptions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, we would accept that the people who sit on the tribunals do their best to analyse these motives to test their authenticity and sincerity, I submit that, with the best will in the world, they cannot perform that important function with perfection. I am not trying to prove anything very startling when I say that I have known people who have been tongue-tied and reticent, as some people are about their emotions and feelings. They have been at a complete disadvantage vis-à-vis those who happen to be fairly eloquent, glib, facile, or easy in expressing their views.
I hope that this discussion will lead to tangible results and that one serious anomaly will be set right. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to remember this. If he consulted religious authorities of all denominations throughout the centuries he would find that what we, possibly vaguely, describe as religious conversion takes place between the age of 18 and 25. I remember as a young theological student studying the research work of a sociologist in America named Professor Starbuck. He made a very closely-knit scientific analysis in America of what is


described as religious conversion, and the age factor revealed in that analysis was that religious conversion takes place between the age of 18 and 25. For the law of our country to suggest that there must be a hiatus, because a person is undergoing National Service, where there can be no spiritual, intellectual, emotional, aesthetic or humanitarian feelings, is surely a very bold and very dangerous assertion to make.
Though, in the first instance, I am speaking as an individual, who feels that we have done well as a nation by conscientious objectors since 1939, I also have the permission of the Free Church Federal Council, which represents officially the Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians and the Unitarians——

Mr. Ede: No, not the Unitarians.

Rev. LI. Williams: Very well, we exempt the Unitarians. This Council has passed a very strongly-worded resolution with regard to this anomaly, and I should like to read it to the Committee. It is as follows:
When Parliamentary consideration is given to its renewal, the Council calls for the repair of a serious defect in the Act. There are no provisions made for men who genuinely acquire pacifist convictions during or after their National Service to register as conscientious objectors to any further service. Such provisions exist already for Z Reservists, who have no statutory obligation to National Service under the National Service Act. It would appear that only after a sentence of three months' imprisonment has been imposed can an appeal be lodged for examination of a man's conscientious objection to further service. The Council deeply deplore the suggestion that it should be official policy that the only way of ascertaining conscientious conviction is by imprisonment, and calls for a more considerate treatment of the problem.
One can so easily speak at length on this subject, but I said my intervention was to be brief, and I would only ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to remember that this conscientious objection, involving so many facets of the individual personality, can take place in that very important period in a young man's life. I hope that, as a result of this debate, this anomaly in a very fine piece of legislative administration will be redressed.

8.23 p.m.

Sir Sidney Marshall: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but the speeches I have just heard have led me to make a short intervention, because I have had experience in sitting on the tribunals for hearing the cases of conscientious objectors. Indeed, I sat through no fewer than 20,000 cases in London during the war.
These tribunals, of course, were set up under the Militia Act, 1938, but we had no occasion to sit until we were called upon with the outbreak of the calamity of 1939. The tribunal with which I was connected comprised the whole of the London area, and the counties of Essex, Surrey, Hertford, Buckingham and Kent—a very large area indeed. We set to work without any previous experience to guide use, nor did we have, nor could we have, any directions as to how we were to set about our task, because no such tribunals ever existed previously in this country, nor, as far as I know, in other countries, in regard to compulsory military service.
I should like to give the Committee the benefit of that experience, and I would say that what the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. Ll. Williams) has said contains a great deal of truth. We must not rule out the possibility that any young man, at the very vulnerable age of 18 to 25, may have very different ideas of what his duty in life should be in certain directions, or certainly be liable to change his religious beliefs; but, on the other hand, from my own experience, I would say that, in regard to conscientious objection to military service, it does not fall too readily to people to make the objections which some young men are perhaps inclined to make.
Some of us know that there has been in existence for several years in this country a religious body, which I will not name, which set out especially to encourage and assist young men to frame and make objections to military service which very many of them had no intention whatever of considering. That is one aspect of this matter, and I do not doubt that a fair number of those who developed a conscientious objection to military service were very often influenced by such bodies as that to which I have referred. There is another very


well-known body, which does not profess to be a religious body, which for many years has had the same object in view. It has spared neither time nor money for several years in getting young men to register as conscientious objectors to military service.
In the enormous number of 25,000 cases with which I was concerned, it was most gratifying and encouraging to find that many young men who came before the tribunal—certainly, a majority of them—and who were quite convinced that they had a conscientious objection to serving in the Army, were perfectly satisfied, after the tribunal had dealt with their cases, to accept without question the judgment of the tribunal. The tribunal received many letters in the course of the years from men serving in the Army who had been before it and who expressed their thanks for the fair treatment they had received, and indeed went on to praise, shall we say, the encouragement which the tribunal had given them at the time they were told that that body could not allow their objections to be sustained and that they would have to do military service.
On the whole, I think that these tribunals can reach a very fair and proper judgment in the case of young men who really have a conscientious objection to military service. I think that men who have started their military service and who then develop a conscientious objection to further service should have the opportunity of presenting those objections to a tribunal before they are court-martialled or before any action is taken in regard to their service. I think it would be showing a proper sense of justice if we allowed such men to be heard before a tribunal prior to their being sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
I do not know whether that practice is followed at the moment, but if it is not, then I think it should be. I do not think that the Services would uffer from the fact that they were likely to lose a valuable lot of men. In my view, we should give these men an opportunity to put their objection before a tribunal, and when the tribunal has reached its decision it should be in the position to say whether a man should be released from military

service and whether he should perform some alternative service.
It was perfectly easy during the war to put these B and C category men into other occupations and to utilise their services to the full; but in peace-time conditions are naturally rather different, and it would be very difficult for a tribunal, which had decided that a man should be exempted from military service on conscientious grounds, to put him to other work which would meet the wishes of the Services themselves. That might be something to which the Service chiefs might address themselves.
If that were done then the gravamen of the complaints made that we are creating a great injustice in forcing such men to continue their military service and are sending them to prison for refusing to perform such service could not any longer be held against us. We should be fair to these young men. and, at the same time, we should make sure that the tribunals can deal with them as they did during the war.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I am not a conscientious objector, and I have no particular qualifications for speaking either for or about conscientious objectors, although I respect those who sincerely and conscientiously believe that it is wrong to take part in war or to perform military service.
I have some knowledge of the tribunals which hear these cases, although I have not attended in recent years. I think there could be improvements. I feel sure that it is better to have an intimate atmosphere rather than, for example, the atmosphere of a county court which, I believe, is still the venue for the tribunal which sits in Leeds. On the whole, I think that those who serve on these tribunals perform a difficult task with impartiality and to the best of their ability, although I do not question the greater knowledge of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).
I think it is fair to say that the fact that time and care are taken in considering these cases of conscientious objection, not only in peace-time but also in time of war when the security of the nation is threatened, is to our credit as a nation. It is one of those aspects of our life which


distinguish this country from a totalitarian State.
I believe that the inherent liberalism—if hon. Members do not like it with a capital "L" I will use it with a small "1"—in a nation, the liberal character and outlook of a nation, is shown by the attitude adopted towards minorities, and, in particular, towards individuals who for reasons of conscience object to the laws and refuse to accept the discipline, which the majority of the people accept, believing them to be necessary on grounds of security and for their own protection. If this be so and if the procedure of the tribunal is right and is based on an enlightened policy there surely is no justification for exceptions to that procedure.
A very strong case has been made out for remedying one of those anomalies which have been mentioned during this debate. I do not know how many people are affected. It may be comparatively few, but that is not important. When one is considering a breach of principle one should not look so much at the number affected as at the principle itself. The great principles of British justice have been built up by considering individual cases, sometimes persons of no great importance, humble people, who have felt that they have a grievance or that their liberty was being interfered with. If we had only considered grievances where a great many people were affected, our standard of justice would not be that of which we now have such reason to be proud.
This case of the National Service man may not involve many people although a number of cases are known to Members in this Committee. Undoubtedly there is felt to be an injustice. This may occur after calling up and before completion of National Service or before recall for part-time service. It is the latter type of case to which I would like to refer. The procedure has already been mentioned and is well known. There is no way whereby a National Service man who has completed his two years can appear before a tribunal except by refusing to obey an order for recall, being arrested and court-martialled, and sentenced usually to three months' imprisonment. Only then can he apply for his case to be heard by an advisory tribunal of the Ministry of Labour. If the deci-

sion is favourable, the recommendation is accepted by the Service authorities.
This procedure can best be illustrated by taking the case of one individual. I understand that this individual is known to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) who took an active interest in his case. He is known to me only because he went to a school of which I am a governor. His name is Brian Jupp. My information was obtained from a statement by the headmaster of the school and from another governor who both know the young man very well. I have a high regard for these gentlemen who have supplied me with this information.
Brian Jupp was born in London in 1929. and lived as a boy in Coventry where both his parents were killed in an air raid in 1941. He was seriously injured. On recovery, he was sent to the school in Yorkshire to which I have referred. He left in 1946, and from 1946 to 1949 was at London University, where he took his B.Sc. He was called up for National Service in 1949. Though he had serious doubts at that time, he did not feel sufficiently assured to register as a conscientious objector.
While in the Forces his conviction on the subject of war service became stronger, and he informed his commanding officer that he felt unable to proceed with training for a commission. The commanding officer was sympathetic, and transferred him to the Education Corps where he acted as a teacher. In April, 1952, that is after his discharge from National Service, he received a notice to report for additional training. By then he was a convinced objector. He wrote stating that he could not comply with the notice, giving his reasons. The authorities took no action until 22nd October, 1952, when he was arrested as a deserter, kept in close detention until 17th November, court-martialled and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Then, and only then, was he able to appear before the advisory tribunal as an appeal against the sentence. His case was heard on 16th December. He satisfied the tribunal of his sincerity. The War Office did not act at once on the finding but he was released on 7th January, 1953. He was imprisoned, therefore, including his period of detention, for approximately two and a half months.
I tried to ascertain the reasons and the justification for all this. I asked a Question on 17th February. 1953, first as to the place and period of his detention. I was told that the prisons in which he was detained were Canterbury, Eastchurch and Wormwood Scrubs and the period was 47 days. I asked:
Is it not anomalous that one who is found to be a genuine conscientious objector should be compelled to serve a sentence of imprisonment before his case is heard?
The reply of the Under-Secretary of State for War was:
Where a soldier who had a chance of claiming conscientious objection before his service started develops a conscientious objection during his service, we want to be satisfied that the objection is bona fide. Therefore, he has to provide some form of evidence that he really does believe what he says has developed, and as soon as that has been done, he is released, as in the case of this man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1064.]
I gather that this period of imprisonment is regarded as necessary as a means to obtain evidence whether or not a man is sincere in stating that he is a conscientious objector. If that is the best procedure that we can adopt, let us apply it to all objectors; but if the procedure of the tribunal is better and more enlightened let that be applied to this kind of case as to others.
I asked another Question on the following day, 18th February, 1953. In view of the time at my disposal I do not propose to read it out, but I asked whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence agreed with the answer which I have just quoted given by the Under-Secretary of State for War. He did not answer my specific Question, but the answer that he gave fell into three parts. First, he said:
The hon. Gentleman realises that there is nothing new about this practice. It has been going on for a number of years. …
If the practice is satisfactory and is in accordance with the principles of British justice I am wasting the time of the Committee in raising it at all, but if it is unsatisfactory and contrary to the spirit of British justice then surely there is no justification in saying that it has been carried on for a number of years.
Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said,
… hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that National Service, both

whole-time and part-time, is a heavy burden upon the young men of this country. Those who seek to evade it should not be able to do so lightly. …
The whole function and purpose of the tribunals is to ascertain whether a man is trying to avoid National Service. The tribunal sees that he does not do so lightly. That is what the tribunal is for. Surely there is no excuse for insisting upon this period of imprisonment before a man has the opportunity of going before the tribunal.
The last part of the answer which I have been quoting reads:
Such men as the hon. Member has in mind have already had a chance, when being called up, to state their conscientious objection and they have not done so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1232.]
This third line of defence seems to be based on the assumption that a youth of 18 must make up his mind for all time on this extremely important moral issue, and having once failed to register as a conscientious objector he has no right to change his mind. I find it very difficult to understand why a man, merely because he is a few years older and rather more mature, should undergo what I call the Wormwood Scrubs test rather than face a tribunal which this country has set up specifically for the purpose of hearing the claims of conscientious objectors.
From whatever angle one considers these matters, there appear to be anomalies; indeed, they are more than anomalies, since they are contrary to the whole spirit of British justice. Whatever may come out of this debate, I hope it will result in a reconsideration by Her Majesty's Government of these anomalies in the procedure for dealing with those who, often after much deliberation, with sincere conviction decide that they cannot participate in military service.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: This is a most important and interesting debate, and there seems to be a general consensus of opinion that what has been said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) accords with the idea of British justice. On the aspect of the right to change one's mind at an early age and to appear before a tribunal, I recall the case that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) mentioned in particular. This boy was only 17 when he


joined the Army and, having been court-martialled and sentenced to 112 days' detention, the tribunal recommended his discharge after he had served his sentence. British justice holds that it is wrong that punishment should be delivered before the verdict.
I should like now to deal with the main case which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough made. Some time ago I raised with the Minister of Labour and National Service the question of the necessity for issuing some kind of regulations for the purpose of guiding local tribunals. I was very concerned about complaints which were made about the Midland tribunal, and in consequence I went to the tribunal to examine the problem for myself. I may say that although I am fairly well known in Birmingham, for some reason or other, the tribunal did not know that I was sitting in the audience until three parts of the cases had been heard. I was completely shocked by some of the questions that were put.
I should like to ask the Minister if he would consider giving to the tribunals some guidance, even if it is not in the form of a regulation, on the process of examination of conscience. There should be a caution about the avoidance of the trap questions. Over the past 18 months in Birmingham, every time there has been a sitting of the tribunal there have been headlines in the Press about the questions that have been put to conscientious objectors. It seems to be customary, first of all, to ask an objector what his job is, and whatever it is, it is in some way related, especially by one member of the tribunal, to the Bible. For example, when they considered the case of a fishmonger, they spent most of the time discussing the humane methods of killing lobsters, and one member of the tribunal seemed horrified at the idea that lobsters should be boiled alive.
I want to refer to specific evidence which was taken before one of these tribunals, in order to illustrate my point. I shall quote from a report which was prepared by a very well known firm of shorthand writers in Birmingham. This is a verbatim note of what took place when a conscientious objector told the Chairman that he worked with a firm of photographers. The questions were asked by a members of the tribunal:

(Q.) You are a photographer?—(A.) Yes, Sir.
(Q.) You believe in the Ten Commandants?
—(A.) Wherein they apply as Christ endorsed them.
(Q.) How do you account for being a photographer when it tells you in the Commandments: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth'?—(A.) That, Sir. I believe to be referring to graven images.
(Q.) I omitted that part because I didn't think it relevant. I will finish it and give it to you in full, now, then: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' That is the business in which you are engaged: in making likenesses, isn't it?—(A.) I would agree, Sir, but I believe that was referring to the worship of idolatory; that was referring to where worship was entailed, therefore excluding the worship of God.
(Q.) It might be a likeness of anything There is no question of …—(A.) I believe that does not conflict with the work I am doing.
I should like to give a second quotation in which the same member of the tribunal puts questions to an applicant who is a Jehovah Witness.
(Q.) Why do you spell Jehovah' with only one 'H'? …

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Or a capital "J"?

Mr. Yates: (A.) That is how I have always seen it spelt.
(Q.) (To Sponsor): What about your friend?
—(A.) In English it's 'Y-H-W-H' as translated from the original Hebrew.
(Q.) You spell it with two 'H's', don't you?
—(A.) No. The common method is that there's one capital 'H' and one small…
(Q.) Why don't you agree instead of dodging the thing? You try to get away with it by deceiving me by saying there is one capital 'H' and one small 'h'?—(A.) Yes, well, I don't see, myself. Sir, what that has got to do with the subject.
Frankly, neither do I.
Those are two examples of a number, and the Minister may have that full verbatim report if he wants to examine it, to see other questions equally far away from the real point of examining a man's conscience. I should have thought, from that, that it was necessary to have some guidance about it.
The gentleman who put those questions was appointed to the tribunal in 1939. Therefore, this kind of questioning has been going on all these years. If


it were just an isolated case, it would not be so bad, but a week ago in that tribunal this question was put to an applicant:
You object on religious grounds. Then will you tell me who is the oldest character in the Book of Genesis?
The applicant replied:
Methuselah.
Then, said the questioner:
Who was Methuselah's father?
I ask the Minister what that has to do with conscience.
It is extremely difficult for young men to know what is expected of them at a tribunal. For example, a week ago a young man, a Quaker, was turned down by the Midlands tribunal. They had full evidence of his membership of the Society of Friends and that he was a Sunday school teacher. He was declined on the ground that he was a draughtsman at the Austin Motor Company, Limited. It was stated, and it was mentioned in the Birmingham Press, that it was quite clear that he had never been associated with any kind of war contract. It seems very difficult for a young man that he cannot be allowed as a draughtsman for motor cars because his firm has contracts for the Ministry of Supply.
Then there is the question of the young man who is deferred because he is following his educational pursuits. There was another case before the Midlands tribunal only a week ago of a young man who belongs to a well-known pacifist family which is well known to the Labour movement. He had obtained scholarships which took him to a grammar school, and from the grammar school he went on to the university. He had developed a conscientious objection, and it could be said that he had declined to be a member of his school cadet force. Nevertheless, in spite of this, and despite the fact that the university authorities had told him that he must concentrate on his studies and not be engaged in outside activities, he has now received notice from the tribunal stating that although they are satisfied he has a full pacifist background, they are not convinced that his activities are consistent with his background and views. That same young man has, also today, been notified that he has passed his examinations and is to be awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree, with

honours. He will go to the appellate tribunal, and I have not the slightest doubt that he will be one of those to whom my hon. Friend has referred whose cases are reversed. I am convinced that if the Minister looks into that case he will find there is absolute justification for the man's conscience.
I should like the Minister to give consideration to the kind of advice and guidance that could be given on such questions as those of a man's job and of what is expected of the individual, so that a man cannot be trapped, but is given a fair and a just chance. Sufficient has been said tonight to justify the request for additional machinery for reviewing the work of the tribunal system, and particularly the suitability of the members of the tribunals upon whom rests the responsibility of a fair interpretation of the conscience clause. I am not making a general charge against the members of the tribunals. I have had other cases mentioned to me at other tribunals, and I am sure that members of the tribunals try to discharge their responsibility in the way they consider right and proper. I am asking only that in some way we examine the system with a view to giving the members more guidance.
It would help immensely if witnesses could always be heard. Sometimes there is a tendency to brush the witness on one side, and to appear not to be willing to hear him. A week ago there was an interesting case in Birmingham. I was informed about it by a number of people who attended. A Quaker took a witness with him who happens to be a rather well known person in Birmingham. The chairman said to the applicant, "You are a member of the Society of Friends? You object to military service on religious grounds?" Then, pointing to the witness standing next to the applicant, he asked him, "What is your name?" He said, "My name is Mr. Paul S. Cadbury." He then said, "And are you a member of the Society of Friends?"

Sir S. Marshall: Judicial ignorance.

Mr. Yates: I do not say that, but complaints have been made to me about the inability of witnesses to give their views. I am stressing this point because of an experience I myself had in the case of


one of the most sincere conscientious objectors I have ever met. I went to the tribunal with him as a witness. It was at the beginning of the war. Frankly, I was not very well aware of the procedure. I stood there, and I expected to be called upon to give witness, but I was quite ignored. The man's case was turned down. Later we went to the appellate tribunal, and I asked whether I might be allowed to say what I had wanted to say in Birmingham. I made my statement, and the chairman of the appellate tribunal accepted it and reversed the decision of the local tribunal. I am quite sure that witnesses can be of great assistance, if they are heard.
I know that the work of the present tribunals is exceedingly difficult. It is exceedingly difficult to sit in judgment on the consciences of other people. We must realise that this is indeed a difficult job. I appeal to the Minister to give full consideration to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough has said, and to what all the others who have spoken have said, and to the arguments they have brought forward, for I am convinced that if he will accept them in the spirit in which we have offered our criticisms that will be to the benefit of the nation and its prestige in the world.

9.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): This has been a very carefully conducted debate, and I will reply to it as sincerely and as carefully as I can. I think that the Committee would like me to try to answer the various points which have been raised, and also to put the general considerations which any Government must have in mind when dealing with this very difficult and important issue.
After all, the foundation of National Service—and I think that I shall carry the whole Committee with me in saying this—is that it is necessary, and fairly and equally applied. So in my opening remarks I think that I should put the point that Her Majesty's Government, and any Government, must always look carefully at any method, however right it may be, which offers a way of avoiding National Service. It must always be the attitude of the Government to preserve equality of sacrifice and fairness of service and

to look carefully at anything which may offer an opportunity of evasion.
It must also preserve the right of conscience because that is one of the essential purposes for which National Service exists—to help defend it. So it is a difficult problem. Any Government must try to keep a fair balance between these two relevant considerations. It must see, first, that it does not offer an easy way for a man to buy or work his way out of what is a national obligation, and, secondly, it must try to preserve the freedom of conscience in which we all believe so strongly.
I shall try to deal first with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). I think that the first point of substance which he raised, and which has been raised by other hon. Members as well, is the problem of what is alleged to be conflicting interpretations by tribunals. We have to face the fact that under the Act itself the tribunal is a completely independent and judicial body, and it is not possible or desirable that it should have a rule book or be subject to directions from the Ministry of Labour.

Sir S. Marshall: Hear, hear.

Mr. Watkinson: I am glad that my hon. Friend, who has so much experience of this matter, agrees with me. It would destroy the whole basis of these tribunals if we subjected them to directions from the Ministry of Labour. The reason I think that one is bound to have a certain degree of conflicting interpretations is that the tribunal itself has no case law, and because I think that if it is doing its work fairly and properly it must treat every case on its merits. Conscience is not a thing which, in my view, one can define exactly, and if a tribunal does not discuss each case fairly and accurately on its merits, I do not think that it can be doing its job properly.
I see the difficulty which has been raised by some hon. Members, and we will look most carefully at any evidence which seems to indicate that a tribunal is not conducting itself in a fair and proper way. I am not for a moment accepting that this is true of any tribunal, but I will certainly respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), and if he will send me the


transcript of which he read out small portions I shall be very glad to examine it. That is the proper thing to do.
The second point as to safeguards is not only the fact that any hon. Member has the right to be present at a tribunal and to make representations upon its work—the real safeguard is the right of appeal to the appellate tribunal. After all, that is why the upper tribunal was established, to provide a safeguard and a court of appeal. On the whole, as some hon. Members have said. I believe the machinery has not worked too badly.
The membership of tribunals was mentioned by several hon. Members. It has been said that some who have been members since the beginning of the war have become a little stale in their task. We take the contrary view. We think that in this very difficult job to which they are committed, with no case law and no possibility of direction or instruction, some value is gained by their having seen before them a large number of cases in that it helps them to make the most difficult, but the most essential, judgment which a tribunal has to make as to the genuineness or falseness of the representations made to it by the man whose case is being heard. So we do not accept the view that relatively long service on a tribunal is necessarily a bad thing.
I am glad that some hon. Members have paid a tribute to the work of the tribunals. We were all glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall), who served on a tribunal, describe some of the difficulties of the tribunals and refer to some of the compliments which they have received for trying to produce fair and just judgments. It is our experience that that is the only thing that the tribunals try to do. It is very often a thankless task—I am sure the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) will not disagree with that—and a difficult task, and I confess that we sometimes find it difficult to persuade people of the necessary standing and judgment to serve on the tribunals, because it is an onerous task. It is fair to say that, on the whole, the members try to do their best.
The third point raised was about where the tribunals are held and whether the atmosphere is rather harsh. Reference

was made to the Leeds court, with the policeman in it, and the judicial surroundings. Let me say at once that we shall, of course, carefully study the points which have been raised on both sides of the Committee. The point which has been made about the atmosphere of the tribunals is a very relevant one, but we must not go to the other extreme and assume that we have to provide such a friendly and cosy atmosphere that the judicial function of the tribunal is lost. After all, the tribunal performs a judicial function; it is taking a very serious decision which may seriously affect a man's life and career.
That also applies to the point about evidence on oath. I should have thought that most people would have preferred to have the proceedings on oath, knowing the great difficulties and also the great responsibilities which rest on the tribunal. I should have thought it an essential safeguard. I must make it plain that it is entirely a matter for the tribunal. As hon. Members have said, some use that procedure and some do not. I am expressing a personal view when I say I should have thought most people would have preferred evidence on oath as an additional safeguard to the reaching of a right judgment, which is what we are all concerned with.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Ask the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall).

Mr. Watkinson: I have only limited time in which to wind up the debate and I must press on if hon. Members are to receive answers to their questions. I shall not go into the question of the relevant changes in conditions because, as I have said, it is our view that the tribunals must be allowed to do their work subject to the general public interest and must be allowed to interpret their affairs in the way they think best.
I now come to the point of substance which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough called cat-and-mouse treatment. The point was also raised by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. LI. Williams). Just to make sure that we are on the same point, it is that of the National Service man who serves his full two years and then develops a conscientious objection and suffers the difficulties which hon. Members on both sides


of the Committee have described. The matter has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and it is up to me to try to deal with the points raised.

Mr. Brockway: That is not the cat-and-mouse point, but it is a substantial point.

Mr. Watkinson: I will deal with the point because it is the one which has received most attention in the debate, and I want to answer it as fully as possible. First of all, to get the record right, the real point of substance was raised during the days of the previous Government, and perhaps it would be as well if I give the actual reference to it, and the Committee will see exactly on what we rest today, because it is still the same.
Perhaps I had better explain at this juncture that for the moment I am dealing with generalities. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough, when he interrupted me, was thinking in terms of the National Service man, and I will deal with that point. But at the moment I am dealing with generalities. On 21st May, 1947, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, said:
… no man is prosecuted after he has served a prison sentence or sentences amounting to three months or more, and which provide, furthermore, that a man is not prosecuted more than twice even if these two prosecutions have resulted in prison sentences of less than three months, except where the sentences are derisory, for instance, small fines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 2421.]
That was the position as defined by the previous Government, and that is the position which we are maintaining today. While it does result sometimes in a man receiving two or more fines, or sometimes two periods of imprisonment, there is the Act and that was the interpretation placed on it. We see no reason to change the general procedure laid down by the previous Government.
I will come now to the more special point of the National Service man, and this is an important point. It is the point of the man who has done two years' service and then goes back into civil life. He may, of course, have a period of up to about 12 months, and then have to go for his reserve training. The point put by

hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is that a man in that time may, for what cause we know not, develop a conscientious objection. Therefore, when he is summoned he refuses. He is still subject to military law and he does not go to the civil courts. He must be court-martialled.
Hon. Members have rather taken the view that he has to be court-martialled and he has to serve three months' sentence before anything can be done. I should like to make it plain that this follows what is in the Act, and that there is no option on any commanding officer other than to have a court martial. The period of sentence is normally three months, because if it is not three months the man is not given the right of appeal to an appellate tribunal.
By administrative action we have done something to meet this point, and I should like to explain this carefully because it will meet some of the points made. First of all, there is the question whether a man should be court-martialled at all. We take the view that this cannot be claimed to be the same case as the Z Reservist. He has had several years in civilian life, and he is a good many years older than when he did the original service, and that in our view is quite a different case.
This young man, not much more than three years ago, knew he would be called for military service, and he also knew at that time that he could register as a conscientious objector and go through the tribunal procedure. He might well be excused there, but he did not do that. He missed that chance. Nobody can define courage and nobody can define conscience. One or two hon. Members have tried to do it tonight, but they are not definable. I am not arguing that a man may not genuinely develop this change of heart, but to protect the broad mass of men who do their service, sometimes at grave risk, we must ask the man who has a change of heart to prove it in some way.
So far as we and previous Governments have seen, there is no better way of doing it than to say, "If you have genuinely suffered a change of heart, you must run the risk of a court-martial and of the detention that will follow." The court-martial is the military authority, but as soon as that has taken place and the man exercises his right to appeal to the appellate tribunal, it then becomes the respon-


sibility of my Ministry and we try to get him heard as quickly as possible. I am not saying that there is not a delay sometimes of some weeks because it depends when the next tribunal sits. Until the case is heard, he has to stay in detention, but when it is heard, and if he is accepted and the tribunal grants his case, the remainder of the sentence is remitted immediately.
We must have that test of sincerity but, having accepted that, we try to bring the man to a hearing as quickly as possible. If the hearing discharges him from further obligations, he is released and not required to serve the balance of his sentence, as he could be on the line indicated by the Act. So we try to keep the balance between fairness and between meeting the needs of conscience. We are always prepared to look at these things again. Indeed, we have only just looked carefully at that procedure with the Service Departments and we have not been able to see a better way of dealing with it.
With regard to the point about the boys, I am sorry that I have not time to deal with the specific cases raised, but if the hon. Member concerned will send them to me, I will undertake to look into them carefully. There was a certain divergence of opinion between the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Members as to whether the two cases quoted came under the heading of boys or not. I do not think that is important to the argument. A Select Committee has looked carefully into this and has laid down procedure which I shall not bother to read to the Committee because I am sure hon. Members are familiar with it already.
Again this is a question where the Select Committee could have put into its report a long and elaborate legal procedure to try to say that the boy had a right to have his case heard as a conscientious objector on reaching the age of 18. It was decided, however, that it would be better to have an administrative procedure whereby his case could be dealt with. I do not think the two cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman fell within the requirements and I still think it is right to say that we have yet to have a case of this kind. Where there is a case, it would be dealt with administra-

tively. The boy would not suffer any penalties, as far as we can see, and he would have the option of leaving the Service at the moment when he left the Boys' Battalion and had to join the Regular Services. If, of course, he takes the choice and joins the Regular Services, it is a different matter.
Many other points have been raised. There was the point of whether we should try to pursue this by international action. As hon. Members know, under the Declaration of Human Rights there has been a certain safeguard for a long time now and there have been efforts to draft additional instruments. One of them contains provisions which would, we think, to some extent cover the point of the conscientious objector. The provisions at present proposed, which are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, read:
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. … For the purpose of this paragraph, the term 'forced or compulsory labour' shall not include any service of a military character, and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognised, any National Service required by law of conscientious objectors.
Whether that will eventually be enacted or not, I am not prepared to say, but that is the position on the international front.
In the few moments remaining I want to revert to the general principles, because I think those are really important. What the country and the Committee have to be satisfied about is that the Government and the tribunals should try to keep the balance as fairly as possible between justice for the man with a conscience and justice also for the men who, if they felt that a great number of people were escaping by this means, would naturally object very strongly to performing their National Service when they knew that others were escaping. I do not say that conscientious objection is used as a great channel for escape, but we must be sure that it is not so used, not only for the sake of the general National Service man but for the sake of the conscientious objectors themselves.
I listened with great interest, as did the Committee, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), who served in the Navy, as I did. He tried to define these difficult matters of where courage begins and cowardice ends, or the other way


round. We have heard the hon. Member for Abertillery rightly talk about the incidence of conversion between the ages of 18 and 25. That is why I feel that we cannot legislate on this. We cannot lay down rules or give instructions to tribunals. All we can do is watch the position and satisfy ourselves that all concerned are trying to do what they think is fair and right.
That, I think, is the responsibility of the Government in this matter. I am very glad that this debate has been held. I think that this matter should be looked at from time to time. That is one of the essential safeguards to ensure that the system is working properly. I undertake that my right hon. and learned Friend and myself will look most carefully at the points raised in the debate. We will make inquiries, at any time if any hon. Member will bring to our notice any case about which he feels seriously disturbed.
But, having done that, and having satisfied ourselves that the tribunals in general are trying to do this thankless job in a sincere and honest way, as I think that they are in general, I think we should express our thanks to them. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough said that, on the whole, he thought that they were doing their job in a sincere and honest way, and so did many other hon. Members. If we subject them to this general check, then we should allow them to do their job. I think we should perhaps express our thanks for what is a very difficult job.
I do not think that any country looks after matters of conscience as carefully as we do. It is an essential part of one of our freedoms; something we must fight to preserve. I am not satisfied that we are not preserving it. It is right that the Committee should look at the matter as it has done today and that the Government should say what I have said—that we will keep a careful eye on it and see that a proper balance is kept between what is just and what preserves conscience. I think that we can be satisfied that, on the whole, this most difficult and important matter is being properly looked after at present.

Resolved:
That a sum not exceeding £39,697,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the follow-

ing services connected with the Position of Conscientious Objectors for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:


Civil Estimates, 1953–54, Ministry of Defence Estimates, 1953–54, Navy Estimates, 1953–54, Army Estimates, 1953–54, and Air Estimates, 1953–54



£


Class V, Vote 8, Ministry of Labour and National Service
12,775 000


Ministry of Defence
13,012,000


Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office
6,910,000


Army Estimates, Vote 3, War Office
3,020,000


Air Estimates. Vote 3, Air Ministry
3,980,000


Total
£39,697,000

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, forthwith to put severally the Questions:

That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Revised and Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Revenue Departments Estimates, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

CLASS I

That a sum, not exceeding £10,257,785, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. House of Lords
78,793


2. House of Commons
627,134


3. Registration of Electors
275,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,224,798


5. Privy Council Office
19,769


6. Privy Seal Office
4,880


7. Charity Commission
55,024


8. Civil Service Commission
235,000


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
269,641


10. Government Actuary
12,226


11. Government Chemist
164,081


12. Government Hospitality
45,000


13. The Mint
90


14. National Debt Office
3,290


15. National Savings Committee
582,387


16. Public Record Office
63,149


17. Public Works Loan Commission
90


18. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
39,691


19. Royal Commissions, &c.
126,090


20. Secret Service
3,300,000

CLASS II

That a sum, not exceeding £57,923,325, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. Foreign Service
8,488,500


2. Foreign Office Grants and Services (including a Supplementary sum of £2,210,010)
11,249,790


3. Foreign Office (German Section)
2,013,619


4. British Council
1,104,200


5. United Nations
575,000


6. Commonwealth Relations Office
1,169,807


7. Commonwealth Services
1,204,304


8. Oversea Settlement
131,300


9. Colonial Office
657,319


10. Colonial Services
17,093,226


11. Overseas Food Corporation
231,559


12. Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)
12,500,000


13. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
320,000


14. Imperial War Graves Commission
1,184,701



£57,923,325

CLASS III

That a sum, not exceeding £60,302,388, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. Home Office
3,671,505


2. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
12,774,890


3. Police, England and Wales
22,165,671


4. Prisons, England and Wales
4,670,399


5. Child Care, England and Wales
6,629,900

CLASS IV

That a sum, not exceeding £202,857,288, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. Ministry of Education
154,096,012


2. British Museum
232,448


3. British Museum (Natural History)
183,977


4. Imperial War Museum
20,767


5. London Museum
13,054


6. National Gallery
57,122


7. National Maritime Museum
24,364


8. National Portrait Gallery
14,305


9. Wallace Collection
19,873


10. Grants for Science and the Arts
670,011


11. Universities and Colleges, &c, Great Britain
14,104,900


12. Broadcasting
12,400,000


Scotland:—



13. Public Education
20,980,922


14. National Galleries
25,673


15. National Library
13,860



£202,857,288

CLASS V

That a sum, not exceeding £390,195,813, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government
6,205,555


2. Housing, England and Wales
48,671,620


3. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
41,190,000


5. National Health Service, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £2,402,625)
245,881,985


6. Medical Research Council
1,180,846


7. Registrar General's Office
289,740


9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
395,000


12. Friendly Societies Registry
46,770


13. Central Land Board
444,000


14. War Damage Commission
853,000


Scotland:—



16. National Health Service (including a Supplementary sum of £275,000)
32,526,000


17. Housing
8,338,000


18. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues
4,133,000


19. Registrar General's Office
40,297



£390,195,813

CLASS VI

That a sum, not exceeding £190,193,965, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£

1. Board of Trade (including a Supplementary sum of £18,010)
4,085,865


2. Services in Development Areas
3,215,060


3. Financial Assistance in Development Areas
760,010


4. Export Credits
133,000


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
982,000


6. Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)
24,000


7. Ministry of Materials
558,000


8. Ministry of Materials (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry)
643,020


9. Ministry of Materials (Strategic Reserves)
7,978,010


10. Ministry of Supply
160,750,000


11. Ministry of Supply (Assistance to Industry, Scrap Recovery, &c.)
260,000

CLASS VII

That a sum, not exceeding £43,317,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. Ministry of Works
4,672,670


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
323,100


3. Public Buildings. Great Britain
18,643,000


4. Public Buildings Overseas
1,317,500


5 Royal Palaces
331,600


6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
477,000


7. Miscellaneous Works Services (including a Supplementary sum of £250,000)
568,690


8. Rates on Government Property
7,485,000


9. Stationery and Printing
8,443,707


10. Central Office of Information
881,000


11. Peterhead Harbour
32,000


Ireland:—



12. Works and Buildings in Ireland
142,500



£43,317,767

CLASS VIII

That a sum, not exceeding £45,400,267, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


2. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £4,289,990)
23,094,630


3. White Fish Authority
763,700


4. Surveys of Great Britain, &c.
1,813,400


5. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
53,418


6. Agricultural Research Council and Nature Conservancy
757,000


7. Development Fund
1,118,000


8. Forestry Commission (including a Supplementary sum of £700,000)
5,241,000

CLASS IX

That a sum, not exceeding £17,241,050, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, or Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


3. Mercantile Marine Services
265,850


4. Ministry of Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
2,210,000


5. Ministry of Civil Aviation
7,674,000


6. Ministry of Fuel and Power
2,291,200


7. Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)
4,800,000



£17,241,050

CLASS X

That a sum, not exceeding £56,264,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
144,000


2. War Pensions, &c. (Revised sum)
50,259,500


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.
665,000


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
5,196,000



£56,264,500

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. 1953–54

That a sum, not exceeding £177,880,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in

the Estimates for Revenue Departments, viz.:—

£


1. Customs and Excise
7,850,200


2. Inland Revenue
21,415,550


3. Post Office
148,615,000



£177,880,750

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

That a sum, not exceeding £176,299,900, be granted to Her Majesty's to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—



£


3 Medical Establishments and Services
1,385,000


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
7,518,000


5. Educational Services
948,000


7. Royal Naval Reserves
1,534,000


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.:—



Section I.—Personnel
34,691,000


Section II.—Matériel
62,692,000


Section III.—Contract Work
58,702,000


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
8,800,900


14. Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair
29,000



£176,299,900

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

That a sum, not exceeding £293,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

£


4. Civilians
60,090,000


6. Supplies, &c.
53,610,000


7. Stores
175,500,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
3,820,000



£293,020,000

AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54

That a sum, not exceeding £134,700,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,


1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

£


4. Civilians at Outstations
£ 26,930,000


5. Movements
12,700,000


6. Supplies
90,480,000


10. Non-Effective Services
4,590,000



£134,700,000

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, the sum of £2,200,549,519 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (GUARANTEED PRICES AND MARKETS)

9.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture Act (Part I) Extension of Period Order, 1953, dated 2nd July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
This Order extends for a further year the powers under Section 4 of Part I of the 1947 Agriculture Act. The Act provides that no Order under Section 4 is effective without the annual renewal of the Minister's powers to make such orders under this Section. The first extension was made in 1950, and this is the fourth such Extension of Period Order.
Section 4 of the 1947 Act gives the Minister power to make administrative arrangements to carry out the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets where no existing arrangement is adequate or suitable, or where no provision exists at all.
At present there is only one such arrangement, and that is for wool—the guaranteed prices provided under the British Wool Guaranteed Prices Order,

1951, which is the Order that is now extended. The Wool Marketing Board set up in 1951 provides the machinery through which these guaranteed prices are paid. Without this Extension of Period Order these arrangements would cease, and therefore I ask the House to give this Order their approval.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I do not rise at this stage in order to prevent any of my hon. Friends from pursuing the subject, but I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary can expect the Order to go through on a simple explanation of the kind he has given us. He has, in fact, read out to us the first two or three paragraphs of the memorandum which the Ministry have issued on this Order, and he ended by saying that if we did not pass the Order the Wool Board guarantees and the Wool Board operations for implementing the guaranteed price would not be able to operate, and that therefore we had better pass the Order or be responsible for putting the wool producers into a difficult position.

Sir Robert Boothby: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) had better wait a little before he says "Hear, hear," as otherwise he may get the concrete where he suggested my hon. Friend would get it the other night.
There are a number of questions which it is about time the Government answered. If it is true that we have to have an Order every year before the wool producers can get their guaranteed price, do the Government and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary regard that as a good form of giving long-term security to the producers? The hon. Gentleman used to say in our day that there was not enough long-term security. Are the Government going on for ever simply extending this Order year after year, or do they propose at some stage to put this temporary business on to a permanent footing, and, if so, how? We have extended the Order on three occasions now.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) introduced the Bill, as it then was, in 1947, he made it quite clear that the powers in Clause 4 were intended to be


quite temporary ones. He made it clear that what was proposed was an Order under Clause 4 in any case where the existing arrangements were not suitable or adequate and that we could extend it from year to year because, as my right hon. Friend said:
'obviously it is going to lake time to work out permanent plans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 631.]
Clearly my right hon. Friend expected that at some stage permanent plans would be worked out. It is not good enough for the present Government to go on extending year by year the purely temporary provision that we produced then without getting down to working out permanent plans. Everybody in this industry is saying—even though we do not seem to be able to get it into the minds of the Minister or of the Parliamentary Secretary—that there is at the moment no indication of what the Government's long-term plans are for agricultural prices.
Merely to extend this matter for another year because if they do not the producer will not get his guarantee is not good enough. Some year, somebody will forget to make this Order at the right time. Things like that have happened before now. Somebody may bring it forward in an illegal form, as happened on the last Order we debated from the Ministry of Agriculture, when it will have to be taken back to be put right, and in the meantime the producers' guarantee will go. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how much longer the wool producers' guarantee is to depend upon extending these temporary Orders for one year.
That brings me to a rather wider consideration. If, as we understand the position to be, any products of which the existing arrangements are not considered to be adequate, is to be dealt with by an Order made under powers obtained by extending Clause 4 (1) year by year, what is to happen to the cereal producers and the egg producers? We are told by this Administration that their aim is to move as quickly as possible into a freer economy. We are told that that freer economy means the disappearance of the Ministry of Food. Indeed, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food hardly let a week pass

without giving themselves a specially minted medal for their anxiety to get rid of their jobs. The fact that the jobs are not got rid of in the meantime does not seem to worry them. They still strike the medals and wear them. They still say that they are anxious to work themselves out of a job as soon as they can. At some stage, apparently, the Ministry of Food is to disappear. The Minister of Food seemed to make this quite clear in an interview he gave to a London evening newspaper about a week ago.
When the Ministry of Food disappears, and unless something permanent and long-term is done, there will be no agency to implement the prices of the guarantee. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me, supposing there is a marketing board for eggs, a commission for cereals or a commission for livestock, where they will get their powers to act as an agency for implementing the Act? Will they be like the Wool Board and have to depend upon an annual extension of the powers under Clause 4 (1)? In other words, is the freer economy which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary talk about merely another name for removing the long-term security and putting it on a year to year basis? If it is said that the Egg Board will not be in that position, what will be the difference between the Egg Board and the present Wool Board, and why cannot the present Wool Board be given long-term security? Before the House passes this extension because of the habit we get into, as Administrations and Oppositions change, of passing this kind of matter through formally, it might be a very salutary proceeding to stop doing it on this occasion and to sit down and think.
Before the House passes this, and before hon. Members on the other side who sit for agricultural constituencies acquiesce in it, we ought to subject the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to a fairly close cross-examination on it. We want to know why the Wool Board cannot now be given permanent long-term arrangements and powers for dealing with this. We want to know what happens in any year to the wool producers' money if the Order fails to be made. What happens when the Ministry of Food disappears? Is there nothing but Section 4 (1) of the


1947 Act, and an annual extension, between the producers and an end of the guarantees? What proposals has the Minister for the permanent arrangements?
We have had several more or less full-dress debates recently on agricultural policy, culminating in the last debate in my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) putting a series of specific questions to the Minister, to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I am glad to see in his place, as to what are their intentions about permanent arrangements for implementing guaranteed prices.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries are no longer getting adept at finding means of avoiding an answer. They are now taking a complete refuge in not facing up to this problem at all. We want to know two things from them. First, we want to know what are their permanent intentions. How do they intend to operate the guarantees under Part I of the Act? I hope that tonight we shall not end merely with the reading of some other irrelevant document.
Let the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea of the sort of thing that he expects to work and how the powers are to be provided. Can it be done under the 1947 Act? Does it need new legislation? How will he provide these powers? Is he going on the line of an annual extension of the powers in Section 4 (1)? If so, how then will he explain to the farmers, the farmworkers and the producers generally that what this Government have done under the cloak of fine words is to remove the long-term guarantees embodied in Sections 1–3 of the 1947 Act and replace them by temporary, year by year powers, which are embodied in Section 4 (1). If that were to be the case we would be much more than half way to the abolition of the Act. We would be almost there.
The wool people are there at the moment. They are there because the Government go on dribbling along incapable of or unwilling to produce a permanent provision in permanent legislation. I am afraid that unless we give the Government a severe jolt we shall

certainly find that the existing mechanism for implementing the 1947 Act for livestock producers, cereal producers, and egg producers will have disappeared because of the doctrinaire policy of the Government and that in its place there will be nothing but Section 4 (1) with its powers extended year by year. I believe that that is a bad thing.
I do not mind the Government having a fling and doing the thing in the way they want, but in the interests of producers I want to know how they are doing it and I want them, if they are doing away with our arrangement, to put something in its place in the long term and not rely upon these temporary, year by year powers. I believe that when the industry really awakens to the fact that in the absence of long-term powers, with the disappearance of the Ministry of Food it will be a year-by-year arrangement which the Government can break merely by forgetting to make the Order or by announcing that they are not going to make the Order, there will be considerable unrest in the industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary cannot expect to get this Order just like that. I hope he will tell us why he cannot have this arangement on a permanent basis. We do not mind him having it this year, if he will make a permanent arrangement next year. We also hope that he will tell us what his permanent idea is for the other crops, and that he will assure us that we shall not be suddenly left, with the Ministry of Food gone and with the present long-term arrangements gone, and nothing in their place but these temporary powers.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will respond to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said. We on this side of the House are very suspicious of the Government's intentions. We know that when the 1947 Act went through many of the supporters of the Government were very critical of Part I and of any planning arrangements that would be made to implement the suggestion of assured markets and guaranteed prices. Therefore, before we pass this Order it is important that we should have such assurances.
Mention has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary of the need in relation


to wool. We have the Wool Board, which is the agency to implement a guaranteed price, but we are rather concerned about the policy of the Government in a wider field. My right hon. Friend mentioned an article by the Minister of Food in the "Star" of 3rd July. He was dealing with meat. When talking of rationing and the future position of the Minister of Food, which is an important factor when we consider this Act and this Order in relation to the Minister of Agriculture, he said:
I must be sure, too, that private importers will be free from undue currency restrictions and that satisfactory arrangements are made for effecting the price and market guarantees for home production under the Agriculture Act of 1947.
We feel from what we have heard in speeches by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and other hon. Members that there is an attempt on the part of certain Members of the Government, supported by very influential people in the Conservative Party, to end the planning arrangements which we made in the Act of 1947. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members to object, but many hon. Members were very critical of this Measure when it went through the Committee stage.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hon. Gentleman and I were both present during those speeches. I am quite sure that he will agree that a great deal of the criticism at that time arose on the question of the assured market and guaranteed price without relation to cost.

Mr. Peart: If the hon. Gentleman will carefully read the reports of the Committee debate he will find speeches by many hon. Members—there are some hon. Members here tonight who spoke in that debate—who made very critical speeches and they voted against this Part of the Act. Because of their record, we are naturally suspicious. The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. York) made critical speeches. I remember his eloquence when he attacked the planning arrangements. I hope he will have the courage to speak tonight and press the Government to give detailed arrangements for moving to a freer economy. When the Prime Minister last addressed a farmers' dinner in London, he defended this move towards a freer economy in agriculture.
We have had the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to this and we know from the whole tone of the propaganda of the party opposite at the last election, when they condemned farming from Whitehall, that they do not like planning. I understand that good Tory philosophy of setting the people free and objecting to assured markets and guaranteed prices, but I wish that hon. Members on the Government side would be consistent and pursue their propaganda to its logical conclusion.
It is for those reasons and because of the uncertainties which have been expressed by a responsible Minister in a forthright speech and by an hon. Member opposite, who was challenged frequently by my right hon. Friend in the last agriculture debate, that we believe that the Government are not sincere in their desire to give those full guarantees which we as a Labour Administration envisaged when the Act went through
If tonight the Parliamentary Secretary is not forthcoming, if he can give no assurances that there will be no sabotaging of the Act or that we will have any of those essential long-term guarantees for producers, we shall have to consider our position. That is why my right hon. Friend, quite rightly, pressed the Minister to give details. After all, the Parliamentary Secretary has written many eloquent pamphlets on the need for marketing policy——

Mr. G. Brown: Not eloquent.

Mr. Peart: I was paying him a tribute. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is an exception in believing that we should work out marketing arrangements to implement what is contained in Part I of the Act, which is affected by this Order. Can the Parliamentary Secretary use his influence to restrict the lunatic fringe in the Tory Party who would ruin our agriculture, as they ruined it in the 1920's and 1930's?

Mr. Robert Crouch: Will the hon. Member agree that the agricultural prices prevailing today under the present Tory Government are higher than ever in the industry's history?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should realise that although prices go on from year to year, they are fixed by the Price Review. He should also remember that because of the financial policy pursued


by the Government, farming costs are also much higher. Many small farmers are now faced with serious difficulties. The Minister should read a speech on credit policy by one of his supporters in the last agriculture debate, when a Conservative Member was very critical of the credit policy being pursued by the Government and its effect on organisations like the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Therefore, the argument of increased prices and costs is not valid.
There is a great danger that if certain sections of the Conservative Party have their way in this move towards a freer economy, the long-term guarantees which are laid down in Part I of the 1947 Act will be considerably weakened, and that British agriculture will go back to that state of affairs, which hon. Members opposite, quite rightly, are prepared to defend, which existed in the 1920's and 1930's. I do not want the farming community to go back to that freer economy which we knew in that period. We know what it meant. [Interruption.] One at a time. Who is to get up first? I am willing to give way.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Was not that Labour policy?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member asks whether that was not the Labour policy. We certainly did not approve of the drift from the land before the war, and we did not approve of the mortgage difficulties which were felt by many small farmers. We certainly did not approve of the neglect of the land. That is why we brought in very early, when we had power after the war, the new Agriculture Act of 1947, which gave the farmer for the first time the security which he never had when hon. Members opposite were in power. [Interruption.]
I wish that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) would make his speech standing up. I will give way if he wishes. He, as a farmer, should know well the danger of freeing our economy and the danger of sabotaging the effects of the legislation which we brought in. I am merely asking that he, as a good farmer—as a bad Tory, but as a good farmer—will use his influence to get assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary, and particularly from people like the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who wish to move away from

what they term the rigidity of the Act of 1947—a nice phrase. We are merely asking tonight that when this important Order goes through to implement extra arrangements as laid down in the Act we can have assurances.
After all, if hon. Members opposite believe that the Ministry of Food should go, then they must carefully think out the details of effective guarantees to the primary producers. The whole effective working of the Act of 1947, the whole effective working of the administrative arrangements contained in this Order, depend in the end upon a State Department and a Ministry of Food. For that reason we wish to have the essential assurances, and I hope that the hon. Member, who sits for a farming constituency, will press the Government on this matter, so that there will not be any betrayal of agriculture as we had a betrayal so many years ago before the last war.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I am not quite able to understand what I think is the rather false indignation of hon. Members opposite over this Order. So far as I understand it, this Order carries on certain provisions that are carried on from year to year. We have heard it said that there is a doubt in the minds of producers as to how permanent these provisions will be, but surely it is the duty of hon. Members opposite to explain why in the first instance these particular provisions were made temporary. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that in due course of time it was intended that other arrangements should be put in the place of the existing arrangements, but I think they have to carry the responsibility for having inserted in the Agriculture Act, 1947, a provision whereby these arrangements have to be carried on from year to year.

Mr. G. Brown: There are two points here. For all the crops mentioned in the Schedule to the Act as it was passed in 1947 we provided permanent arrangements, and if this Government had not upset them, those permanent arrangements would have been carried on. Temporary provisions were provided for many other things, for instance, wool, when it was added to the Schedule, so that we could have temporary provisions until permament arrangements were made. So


we covered the thing both ways. It is only the present Government who are now making temporary provisions apply to what hitherto had been covered by permanent provisions.

Mr. Bullard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the Government would prefer that arrangements should be carried on for a longer period. It was stipulated in the Act that they should be carried on from one year to another, and that is why we have this Order tonight.
There is another point I would put to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Tonight they have talked a good deal, particularly the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), about decreased confidence and short-term policy. I think it is a great mistake on their part to emphasise this in every agricultural debate.

Mr. Brown: What used the hon. Member himself to do?

Mr. Bullard: I am a great believer in permanence and stability in agricultural policy. It is a great dis-service to the agricultural community for hon. and right hon. Members opposite on every one of these occasions to plant, or try to plant, seeds of insecurity in the farmers' minds for what, I believe, is primarily a political purpose. I believe they have a political purpose in opposing this Order tonight.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member surely has read the National Farmers' Union's publications where over and over again they press for a long-term programme? We have had speeches from very responsible members of the farming community, not attached to any political party, and articles in very responsible farmers' papers, deploring the fact that the Government will not give the farmers any vision of what their long-term agricultural policy is.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: By leave of the House, in reply to the various points raised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and his hon. Friends, I think that I should first explain a point upon which the right hon. Gentleman, strangely enough, is at fault. He is under

the impression that he has made permanent arrangements for the Schedule of commodities in Part I. In fact, of course, he did not. The intention is defined in the first three Sections of the 1947 Act, but the means of making the payments was through the Defence Regulations—emergency powers which the Ministry of Food had and which are still being operated, and which, of course, had no permanency at all. They have to be renewed from year to year in exactly the same way as this Order does.

Mr. G. Brown: That is a different point.

Mr. Nugent: It is not a different point. The right hon. Gentleman was quite incorrect in trying to put my hon. Friend right. He was completely wrong himself. I advise him to study the exact structure under which he was operating the guaranteed prices and he will see the extent to which he was wrong.

Mr. Brown: So long as the Ministry of Food was there it was all right.

Mr. Nugent: The Ministry of Food were operating it under emergency powers which they have to renew from year to year. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that he set up any permanent legislation at all in order to implement the guaranteed prices. He has not.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making a great point of this, but I hope that he will come to the point which I was making to him just now. I hope that he is going to examine the argument we were discussing. The point is whether the Ministry of Food needs to have permanent legislation in this matter or not. The present arrangement for the operation of the 1947 Agriculture Act operates so long as there is a Ministry of Food Therefore, it is the action of the present Government in doing away with the Ministry of Food that brings into question the temporariness or permanence of the powers of the Agriculture Act. That is what he has to answer.

Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman has tried to find an answer but it is a very flimsy one. It does not answer the fact that the powers under which the Ministry of Food operates are temporary emergency powers which have to be renewed from year to year. I am not at


all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was rather upset at hearing that.
The general philosophy of the 1947 Act is, of course, a permanency, but it is clear from reading the explanatory leaflet which came out with the 1947 Act, and which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend's published, that the general intention was that the guaranteed prices for the scheduled commodities would be operated under emergency powers which were to be retained in the Ministry of Food so long as these were necessary. These additional arrangements were made under Clause 4, but quite obviously we were looking forward to the time when some long-term legislation was brought in to put these price payments on a permanent basis.
This particular provision of Clause 4 is on very much the same basis as the other arrangements for paying guaranteed prices at the present time. It certainly is a provisional arrangement as was defined in the explanatory leaflet, and it is necessary to renew it from year to year. I agree with him that it would not be satisfactory to leave either this arrangement for wool or the arrangements for the other price review commodities on the temporary basis whereby it is necessary to renew them from year to year.
As my right hon. Friend informed us recently in the Supply Day debate we have been working for some time on the evolution of long-term legislation and long-term structures for the various commodities as we move into a freer economy, in order to give the necessary guarantee and assurance of prices. Then we shall have not only for this commodity of wool but for all other commodities a long-term arrangement, not just determining the philosophy of guaranteed prices under the 1947 Act, but providing a long-term statutory basis for the actual payments of the monies involved.
With regard to wool, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that eventually there may have to be long-term legislation, but in the first cycle, which the House will know is a five-year cycle, the arrangement has served quite well and there is no immediate necessity to change it. I can certainly assure the House, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his hon. Friends, that this Government,

at any rate, is in no danger of forgetting to bring the Order forward.

Mr. Brown: The Government sometimes bring Orders forward in a form which we cannot understand.

Mr. Nugent: We shall be perfectly ready to bring the Order forward at regular intervals of a year so long as it is necessary to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what will happen to cereal and egg producers when the existing arrangements for guaranteed prices for Ministry of Food purchases come to an end. We shall make the necessary arrangements to maintain the guarantee, and in due course we shall bring before the House long-term legislation to provide a statutory basis. However, it would be quite wrong to leave the impression either in the House or outside that the year-to-year arrangement is any different from the system that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Brown: It is quite different.

Mr. Nugent: It is exactly and precisely the same arrangement carried on on a year-to-year basis. I am not criticising it; I am simply stating it as a matter of fact. For the time being it has served, but eventually it will be necessary to put it into long-term statutory form, and we are in process of doing that.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) made his usual speech which we have heard a good many times here.

Mr. Brown: We liked it better than the one which the Parliamentary Secretary is making.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member's speech was of very little substance, and there is a good deal of weight in the criticism of my hon. Friend that it tended to destroy the confidence which is necessary for increased production. If the hon. Member is really interested in getting increased production, he should make his remarks more constructive.

Mr. Brown: There is one matter which puzzles me at the moment. The Parliamentary Secretary may be right, but I should like it made clear. The Order is made for one year and runs out on 5th August next year. If, as he says,


this is the same arrangement as has always previously operated—which I do not agree—if it applied to cereal prices, how would he fix a price in this year's Price Review to apply to next year's harvest, as we always did under the old arrangements, if the Order under which it has to be done runs out before the crops are harvested?

Mr. Nugent: We shall do it in exactly the same way as we have done the wool prices.

Mr. Brown: They are not fixed in the same Order.

Mr. Nugent: If I may be allowed to continue my speech, the wool price payment structure is based—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me his attention, because he is not altogether well informed on the matter—on the wool price Order of 1951. That Order runs on continuously until the House brings it to an end, and it is the Order now before the House which gives the necessary powers to continue it. In other words, this is, so to speak, a parent Order to the actual Order which determines the structure for the wool payments.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry. I may not be very well informed——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that this is the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has already made four interventions on the subject. We cannot conduct the debate as if the House were in Committee.

Mr. Nugent: I think I can rapidly bring my remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker. I feel certain that I have satisfied the House that the arrangements that we are making for wool are exactly comparable to those for other commodities and that it is perfectly reasonable to continue the provisional arrangements for wool marketing at present. We have no immediate intention of applying this provision to other commodities, but if and when we decide to do so, we shall bring the necessary Order before the House. I can give the House the firmest assurance that the passing of the Order is strictly consistent with the spirit of the

1947 Act and that the guarantees that we have given farmers up to now and for the future will in every way be beneficial and conducive to increased production.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary fully appreciates that none of us had any intention of opposing the passing of this Order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made it clear that we understood it was necessary to have this Order if the wool marketing arrangements were to continue. But the Parliamentary Secretary left the impression with hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was necessary to have this Order to give effect to the guarantees contained in the 1947 Act, and that this had been done year after year since 1947 in order so to do. If he did not say so in so many words——

Mr. Nugent: I did not.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman gave that impression, because towards the end of his speech he made it clear that this Order was only necessary for the wool marketing arrangements and not for any other commodity in the First Schedule to the 1947 Act. The reason for my right hon. Friend's question was that we have been told many times in recent months that the agriculture industry is about to move into a freer economy We all know that cereals and eggs are decontrolled, but they are provided for where guarantees are necessary under Section 3 of the 1947 Act, so this Order has no effect upon that whatsoever.
The important point is that if some marketing arrangements for eggs and cereals have to be made they have to be similar to the arrangements made for the marketing of wool; that is to say, there have to be new arrangements under the terms of Section 4 of the 1947 Act. That Section deals with the variations of arrangements or new arrangements replacing those hitherto followed under Section 3 of the Act. If those new arrangements modify the marketing of those commodities, then that would be done under the powers given in the Order which we are to approve tonight.
My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that this Order runs until 5th August, 1954. Under the present arrange-


ments the Government are able to give a long-term guarantee to the industry, and they see the advantages to the industry of the security afforded under Section 3. But a different position arises if the Government have to say to the industry, "Our intentions as honourable men are good. We will continue with the guarantees for many years, but we are sorry that under our new arrangements you will only be able to get your guarantees and your security on a year-by-year basis, dependent on the House of Commons passing the Agriculture Act (Part I) Extension of Period Order in July each year." The Parliamentary Secretary must not accuse us on this side of the House of endeavouring to create a feeling of insecurity amongst farmers in this country.

Mr. Nugent: I hesitate to speak again, but may I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He has got it all wrong. It is only possible to implement the guarantees on other commodities by the annual renewal of the emergency powers contained in Defence Regulations under which the Ministry of Food act. Exactly the same provision is necessary annually in this case in order to implement this guarantee for wool.

Mr. Fraser: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be right, but I doubt it. Of course the Ministry of Food get their powers annually by the Order referred to. But the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland have powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1947 to deal with the agricultural industry. That is the point, and if we did not use the instrument of the Ministry of Food, the Government of the day are fully empowered to use another instrument of their own making and choosing, so the argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman is irrelevant.
I was going to quote some of the things which the farmers in Scotland have been saying about the policy of the Government, but I shall not do so at this late hour. In the course of a debate last week I ventured to interrupt the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—there are so many that it is difficult to identify which one. However, I asked if he had seen a report in the "Scotsman" of what

the farmers in Scotland were saying about the agricultural policy of the Government vis-à-vis guaranteed prices and an assured market. They have been using much stronger language than has been used tonight or on any other occasion I can recall by hon. and right hon. Friends of mine in the course of debate.
We are unhappy about this position. We think that the principle and the basis of the 1947 Act is being undermined by these policy decisions of the present Government. They have found it easy to take decisions which have brought about chaos in the marketing of some of our agricultural commodities. Eggs provide one glaring example. It was the action of the Government that created chaos. The Government spokesmen say, "Ultimately we shall bring in some sensible, workable arrangements to deal with the marketing of eggs," but it was they who put the farmers in the difficulty by taking the action which has led to all this widespread criticism throughout the whole of the industry North and South of the Border.
They must not lay at our door the accusation that we are making speeches which are encouraging a feeling of insecurity in the agricultural industry. We say that this Order which we are asked to pass tonight is the kind of instrument which we think is useful to carry the Ministry and the Government over a temporary period when they have to modify the arrangements for effecting guarantees as set out in Section 3 of the Act. We say, however, that it should be the exception rather than the rule for the Scheduled commodities to be dealt with under this Order. Since there has been so much talk of decontrol and of moving into a freer economy, we have a great fear that many of those commodities will in the not distant future, in view of the promise of the early demise of the Ministry of Food, fall to be dealt with under this Instrument, and so the security will be given to the farmers on a year to year basis.

Resolved,
That the Agriculture Act (Part I) Extension of Period Order, 1953, dated 2nd July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

FISHING VESSELS (GRANTS)

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I beg to move:
That the Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1953, dated 1st July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that, as this Scheme and the next one are similar in content, they might be taken together though, of course, the House would be perfectly at liberty to divide separately on each if necessary.

Mr. George Brown: I take it that although we have the Scottish Scheme before us now the discussion will range also over the English Scheme?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that that would be a convenient course.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the House will recall, Section 1 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, which we passed into law quite recently, enables the White Fish Authority to make grants towards the cost of new fishing boats and engines but lays down that the arrangements for giving grants shall be in accordance with statutory Schemes which themselves require the approval of Parliament. It is those statutory Schemes that we are now about to examine.
Section 6 of the Act gives similar powers to the Herring Industry Board. The two schemes contained in these two Statutory Instruments embody the arrangements which the Government propose, and they have obtained the approval of both the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I will deal first with the White Fish Scheme and then with the special matters that distinguish the Herring Industry Scheme. As we have been over most of the ground before in the debates on the Bill, the House will not expect me to do more than pick out the salient points. Looking first at the rate of grants under the White Fish Scheme, broadly speaking two distinct rates are provided for. One applies principally to the near and middle water boats, and the other to inshore vessels. The distinction corresponds to that which is set out in Section 2 of the Act.
Section 2 limits the amount of grant which may be made in respect of any one vessel to 25 per cent. of its total cost or, where the cost does not exceed £20,000 and the owner is what is called a "working owner," to 30 per cent. of the cost or £5,000, whichever is the less. Under the same Section 2, grants for new engines may not exceed 30 per cent. of the total cost or £1,250 whichever is the less. In all cases, these grants for engines are restricted to "working owners." These are the maximum rates of grant that may be made.
In Committee the question was raised: should the rate of grant made now at the beginning of the Scheme be at the maximum level or at some lower level? We were all agreed that it should be at the maximum level, and that in fact represents the choice which the Government have made.
So far I have been dealing with the Act. If hon. Members will look at the Scheme——

Mr. Edward Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the definition of "working owner"? This has always been a source of anxiety to me. The definition of the words "working owner" refers to one who, "regularly goes to sea." The word "regularly" might be interpreted in many ways. I have in my constituency people who are owners and who go to sea but leave most of the actual fishing to paid skippers and others who make that their lifework. But these fellows very often are part of a company or a small corporation of people who actually do not go regularly to sea.

Mr. Stewart: The answer probably is that the distinction is that set out in the Scheme, namely:
'working owner' means a person who, being the owner or one of the owners of a vessel, regularly goes to sea in it when it is used for the purpose of fishing.
This Scheme was been approved by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. It is they who will administer it and they think they understand what that definition means. I think I understand also. The only suggestion I can make is that if the hon. Member is still in difficulties he should visit the White Fish Authority and ask them what they mean by it.

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not understand it.

Mr. Stewart: Oh, yes, we understand quite well, but it is another thing to explain it to hon. Members opposite.
Hon. Members will see that in paragraph 8 of the Scheme it is provided that in the case of larger boats the grant, if approved, must be at the full rate of 25 per cent. In the case of smaller boats it must again be at the full permitted rate of 30 per cent., or £5,000, whichever is the less. The grants for engines are similarly required to be at the full permitted rate of 30 per cent. or £1,250, whichever is the less.
The general effect of this decision is, subject to the overall limits, that the Scheme requires all grants which the Authority decide to make to be at the maximum rate allowed by the Act. The purpose of this provision is of course to make the Scheme as attractive in its early stages as we can, so as to encourage as many applicants as possible to come forward.
I do not need to trouble the House with another account of the economic circumstances in the industry which make these grants necessary. We have been over that ground again and again. It is enough to say that we want to encourage owners to start right away with the rebuilding particularly of the near and middle water fleets, and for that purpose we are providing the maximum incentive from the start. If we find that too many boats are being built, we can always amend the Scheme. The Scheme fixes the overall maximum grant of £25,000 for any one vessel. This will give the full 25 per cent. grant to the boat costing £100,000 to build. Any expenditure above that figure, of course, will have to be met by the owners of the boat.
The House, I think, will agree that there must be a maximum figure of some sort, if only to put some check upon wasteful, uneconomical and extravagant building. The only question is whether £25,000 is the right figure. We believe, after careful reflection, that it is. A sum of £100,000 will build a modern diesel trawler of about 120 ft. in length. This should be enough to provide for the needs of heavy boats capable of fishing the Faroes, Rockall and the hake grounds of the South-West Approaches, and it will be a good deal more than will be needed to build a boat for the North Sea.
These estimates are confirmed by the trend of recent building. The House may be interested to know that of the 66 near and middle water trawlers built since the war, 48 would, on present prices, have cost £100,000 or less to build and would have qualified for the full rate. In this matter, therefore, the policy objective and the natural trend of developments both point in the same direction. I should add that of the 16 applications for near and middle water boats which have already been made to the White Fish Authority in anticipation of the Scheme, all but one would, on this figure, have obtained the full 25 per cent. grant.
May I say a word about conditions? The conditions, as distinct from the rates, call for comparatively little comment. They are mostly concerned with matters of detail, as is usual in schemes of this kind. I should draw attention to paragraph 5 of the Scheme under which applicants for grants must satisfy the Authority that they can operate a fishing vessel successfully. This is, of course, fundamental, and gives effect to an undertaking which we made in Committee.
Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, under which the Authority may require applicants to make a full statement of their financial position and lay their books and records open to inspection by the Authority's accountants, is part and parcel of the same conception. It is only reasonable that before making substantial grants from public funds, the Authority should be reasonably sure that that money is going to be in safe hands. Hon. Members will also note paragraph 9 (3), which deals with the crew accommodation, a subject which raised a good deal of interest in the earlier proceedings. This requires accommodation to conform to Ministry of Transport standards; and imposes on the Authority the duty to ensure that the vessels are in conformity with the best modern practice.
I should like to say a word about the fishing areas. Paragraph 12 (a) provides for certain requirements in the actual process of fishing. Perhaps the main point of interest is that there shall be given an undertaking that the vessel shall be used within the inshore, near, and middle waters, but allowing for trips to distant waters, with certain prescribed limitations. This provision is intended to ensure that the grant is used to restore


the near and middle waters and inshore fleets. A grant which, in practice, enabled boats to go in for regular and extensive distant water fishing would obviously be misapplied; that was not the intention behind the Act, and, indeed, does not commend itself on merits at the present time.
The distant water fleets in recent years have sometimes produced more than the market could absorb, and have, consequently, had to restrict their operations, by voluntary agreement, in the spring and summer fishing. The British Trawler Owners Federation would have liked to see the new boats excluded altogether from distant water fishing, but we do not want to go so far as that. Indeed, it is already the practice for some of the near and middle water boats to make occasional trips to the distant waters, and the Government think it wrong to interfere with an action which is, for these boats—and particularly in Aberdeen—the normal pattern of fishing. The provision in paragraph 12 (a) enables the boats in question to make two voyages during the spring and summer in distant waters, and also gives the Authority discretion to increase that number of voyages to three. It is intended to provide that amount of latitude which is necessary in order to avoid the risk of injuring the competitive power of this part of the near and middle water fleets.

Mr. Edward Evans: On what basis has this figure been fixed? Why is it not five or six, or seven or eight? Why this arbitrary figure of two to three?

Mr. Stewart: Because that is what has been happening in Aberdeen, to which this chiefly applies. In Aberdeen, up to 1951, about 40 trawlers of less than 140 feet visited Icelandic waters seasonally, but the number has dropped considerably since then, no doubt because of the Icelandic fishing limitations, and in 1953, only 11 trawlers, making 26 trips, went to Icelandic waters, and on this basis of history and fact, we have arrived at this figure.

Mr. Evans: Nonsense.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member went to Aberdeen, he would not say "Nonsense." If he did, I can assure him that he would not get a very friendly reception.

Mr. Evans: Is it not a fact that the very condition the hon. Member mentions is purely fortuitous—that the Icelandic landings have been barred here?

Mr. Stewart: This has been the practice of the Aberdeen boats for a great many years. Today, on account of the Icelandic action, not so many boats are going as went before.
May I now turn to the Herring Industry Scheme. This, as hon. Members will see, is very similar to the White Fish Scheme. It governs the payments of grants by the Herring Industry Board for the provision of new boats and engines, and lays down the amounts of such grants, and the conditions under which they will be made. I need only mention the two points on which it differs from the White Fish Scheme.
In the first place, it does not contain any restriction about fishing in distant waters—I am sure that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) will be glad to hear that—because it is neither necessary nor appropriate in the case of herrings. In the second place, the overall maximum grant in respect of any one vessel is £12,000, instead of £25,000. That is because the boats designed primarily for herring are usually much smaller than the trawlers. The maximum of £12,000 will enable the full rate of grant to be paid on boats costing up to £48,000 to build; and I am advised that this should cover all existing types of boats wholly or mainly intended for herring fishing; but it will, of course, discourage any unduly large and expensive boats.
My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the North of Scotland will, perhaps, say that dual-purpose boats for herrings and white fish may, therefore, be excluded. The answer is that they will not be excluded. Dual-purpose drifter-trawlers might well exceed £48,000 in cost, but the owner of such a boat could apply to the White Fish Authority for a grant within the higher £25,000 limit laid down in the White Fish Scheme.
The Scheme has been made with the full assent of the Herring Industry Board, and I hope that the House will give it its approval. For the sake of brevity I have tried to concentrate upon the salient features of the two Instruments.


I hope that they will be well received. As I have explained, the terms have deliberately been made generous, because we take the view that the rebuilding of the fleet is urgent. I feel confident, therefore, that the House will share the Government's view both of the objective of the Schemes and of the need for determined measures to achieve it.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: On behalf of my right hon. and hon Friends on this side of the House, I welcome the introduction of this Scheme. We intend to facilitate its early passage, as we did the Bill. The Scheme, of course, is very much better than it would have been but for the vigorous efforts which we made on this side of the House, more or less supported by one or two Members on the other side, to put the Bill into better shape. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) reminds me, had it not been for our efforts, there would not have been a scheme at all. We insisted on it.

Sir Robert Boothby: So did we.

Mr. Brown: As I said, we were more or less supported by one or two Members opposite, and in some way, I suppose, the hon. Member comes within that category.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the generous nature of the grants. It is not unfair to say that some of us on this side—the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) associated himself with us—are entitled to take credit rather than the Government Front Bench for the grants being as they are. They would have been a good deal less but for the vigorous action we took, and we were right to do it.
But a number of us doubted whether, even now, we were "spreading the jam"—that was a phrase that came into currency during the passage of the Bill—thickly enough around to attract sufficient applicants. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, will he say whether there is any evidence as to whether applications are coming in in anything like the numbers we need?
The Explanatory Note makes it clear that the contract for the boat or the engine must have been placed after 31st

July, 1952. Clearly, there may not have been many contracts for new boats placed after that date, but I should have thought that quite a number of engines would have been fitted; and one way or another we ought by now to have some indication of the attractiveness of the grants at this level. We cannot say whether we have been generous unless we know whether the grants are proving attractive.
There are one or two points about which I am still a little concerned. The Joint Under-Secretary drew attention to paragraph 9 (3), which deals with crew accommodation. At the time, I was anxious to have that in the Act rather than in the Scheme. I still wish it were there, but I think that this does what we had hoped to have done in securing Ministry of Transport standards and that, in addition, the Authority has to satisfy itself that the conditions are up to the best modern practice. Thus, if it happened that the Ministry's standards were lagging and that modern standards were ahead, it would be the modern standards and not the out of date requirements of the Ministry which would have effect. The presence of the words, "in the opinion of the Authority" may mean a weakness, but I hope one is right in thinking that the Authority will always be ready to listen to the recommendations of, for instance, the trade unions.
We were told, when the Bill went through, of the run-down of the fleet which had occurred. Could we have tonight any figures showing what has happened since it became known that this kind of assistance was to be made available? That would help us to assess the value of this Scheme.
Regarding paragraph 12, I still do not understand what the hon. Gentleman was trying to put forward as defence. Here I am with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in the view that, since it has been the practice of these boats from Aberdeen on occasions to go out into distant waters, it would be wrong so to draw this Scheme as arbitrarily to prevent that happening again, although there is common agreement. I do not understand why it is thought necessary to write into the Scheme the figure of two voyages in any one year, subject to the discretion of the Authority to make it three. The hon. Gentleman produced


an extraordinary argument on this. He said that the boats going out had now been reduced to 11, and that they made 26 voyages, which was about two a year. Actually it is as near three; but the question is, can we say that no boat went out more than twice.

Sir R. Boothby: What does it matter?

Mr. Brown: It matters because it means that as we are writing in this not strictly average figure a boat which happened to go out four or five times to make up for one which had not gone out, or had gone only once, is now going to be prevented from doing that again.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This only applies to new boats.

Mr. Brown: I have frequently been told from that bench that I have not understood something, but I wish some hon. Members over there would try to get things properly and would not be in such a hurry to teach. Let us have a little more humility. [Interruption.] I was not suggesting that I ought to have more humility. Therefore, the boat that is replacing one that used to go four or five times is limited to twice. Am I right? Who has not got it right? Is that not so? Of course it is. Would it not have been much better, in the interests of some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, to have drafted this provision in the simpler way of leaving it to the discretion of the Authority? I just do not see why we force in two years, why we limit the discretion. I think that is a sort of bureaucratic provision that is not really required, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has given us no defence of it at all.
Anyhow, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, when he has got over teaching—and I hope he will have better luck than he had last time and than his hon. Friend—when he has got that off his chest, will, I hope, undertake to give a little thought to this. I am quite sure one of us is going to get a letter at some stage saying someone has been hurt by this. I think it is bureaucratic and unnecessary, and I hope that it will be readjusted.
Those are the general points. There is nothing much new at this stage to say about this. We had a long debate on

the Bill, and a good long Committee stage. The Government were extremely forthcoming and were willing to listen, and a lot of Amendments were made with which many hon. Members in all quarters had something to do, and so the Bill emerged from Committee as a pretty general representation of the concensus of opinion of us all. Subject to the one point I have already mentioned, and the figures I asked for, I would say the Scheme is in the form in which we wanted it to be, so that I think we can only say we wish it well.
We really do hope that the grants will be generous enough and on loose enough conditions to enable the modernisation of our near and middle fleets to be carried out, and we hope, above all, that the Authority and the Government will still recognise that even when they have made grants they have not cleared up the problems that beset the British fishing industry. Moreover, the modernised near and middle waters fleets could themselves become 20 years hence the out of date fleets that those we have now are; which are themselves 20 years out of date. That would be a sad thing to happen, and so I hope we shall go on giving a good deal of attention to the problems of the industry.

10.53 p.m.

Sir Robert Boothby: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) had a few good words to say for us towards the conclusion of his remarks. At the beginning of his speech I thought him niggardly and ungenerous. He knows just as well as I do that he received full support from our side of the House when we were in Committee on the Measure, and the Government were speedily convinced by the cogency of our arguments in favour of the replacement Scheme, and yet he had the effrontery to say he had had occasionally half-hearted support from our side in the suggestions for that. He went on to talk about "spreading the jam." I would point out that I was the man who talked about "spreading the jam."

Mr. G. Brown: I knew it was somebody over there.

Sir R. Boothby: Did he give me any credit for this vivid and illustrative


phrase? Not at all. He said "somebody" spoke about spreading the jam. He knew perfectly well who that somebody was.

Mr. Brown: Is not the hon. Gentleman somebody? Why, he is even more somebody now.

Sir R. Boothby: Lastly, he seemed concerned about the principle of application. I should like to take up that point. There are quite a lot of applications pending in my constituency, and a good many—I shall not say granted—but proceeded with in recent weeks and months on the assumption that this Scheme would be passed, perhaps, sooner than it is going to be. All I want to do is to press my hon. Friend to get it into operation as quickly as possible. I gather that 14 days after the passage of the Scheme through both Houses it will come into operation, and I want him to give us an assurance that he will take every possible step to get it through another place as fast as possible. I am satisfied that this is the best grant scheme which has yet been evolved for the herring industry, and I think hon. Members on both sides will agree with me on that.
I see the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) looking a bit restive. I think I can satisfy him on the definition of "working owner" which seems to worry him. It is quite clear that a "working owner" is something which applies to my constituents who fish from boats and not to his constituents who fish from the shore. That roughly is the definition, which I think is a good one, of a "working owner."
I have only one other point to make, and that concerns the White Fish Industry Scheme. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said that under that Scheme there was a requirement that the fishermen should operate their fishing vessels successfully. I utter this as a word of warning. Let him take care that the Government are not going to do something to prevent the near water fishermen from being able possibly to operate any fishing vessel successfully. This is something which wants looking into. I think there has been a mistake made about the mesh that has been agreed under the international agreement.
According to the tests that have recently been made in my constituency

and elsewhere, it is quite clear that all the fish in the near waters swim quite easily through the meshes of the standard design which is by the way of being applied next year with the result that the fishermen catch nothing at all. The fishermen could not possibly operate any vessel successfully if they have to fish with a net in which none of the fish stay. That is a quite impossible proposition. I think there has been a mess up on this; perhaps I should have said a "mesh" up. However, the Spaniards, the Norwegians and others are not happy about this, and I dare say it will be put right. I ask the Under-Secretary to look into this aspect of the matter, because it would be a great pity if this House passed such a good scheme for grants for fishermen, and the near water white fishing industry was prevented from enjoying the benefits of it.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I would not have intervened in this debate had not the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) provoked me. I have a most vivid recollection of the Committee stage of the Act under which this Scheme is produced. He claims that he supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) when he was piloting that Bill through, but all that he did was to have a violent row with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who, during recent years, has emerged as one of the great authorities of the fishing industry, much to the chagrin of the hon. Member.
I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire making the jibe he did at the fishermen of Lowestoft, and I want to take up that point. I do not think he really meant it. We remember that during the night of the floods a Lowestoft boat was one of the few that put to sea that night, and it never returned. There was a loss of 11 gallant fishermen.

Sir R. Boothby: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that, of course, I was not jibing at the Lowestoft fishermen. I was talking about the position which applied to my constituency and did not apply to his. The fishermen in my constituency own their own boats, whereas a large number of boats in his constituency are owned by people ashore. That is the difference.

Mr. Evans: I accept the hon. Member's assurance, but it allows me to deal with the point I wanted to make, when I was asking the Under-Secretary what exactly he meant by a working owner. The hon. Gentleman stated that most of the fishing is done from Lowestoft by companies. Are we going to be deprived of the benefits of these grants? This applies to most of the firms operating in the near water fisheries. Is the near water fishing industry to be debarred because they are a company of people who want to take advantage of grants under this Scheme? I sincerely hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a firm assurance on that point.
It was a very good "crack" of the hon. Gentleman to talk about the size of the mesh. He and I have been in this fight for the conservation of the fishing grounds ever since I have been in this House. If he is going now to deplore the only positive action which has been taken to preserve our fisheries, what is he going to say tomorrow afternoon when he is talking about the conservation of the fishery grounds in the Moray Firth? What arguments are we to expect against the Overfishing Commission now established if it sets standards which he is the first to deplore? The hon. Gentleman is expected to be the custodian of the fishing interests. [Interruption.] I do not know that the hon. Gentleman can assume he is such an authority as to over-ride the considerable weight of evidence.
I am very pleased and proud that the Government has followed up the policy of the Labour Government in making grants and loans available, and I wish them every success in this measure. I am rather hopeful that, in connection with the development of the grants and loans system, we are going to see the withdrawal from the fleets of these vessels which we know to be unseaworthy and a real menace to the industry. It is no good mincing words. There are vessels going to sea today in which I, and I do not profess to be the most courageous man in this House, would not like to sail in confidence.
Families in my constituency are extraordinarily anxious on this situation. We have to encourage the withdrawal of obsolescent boats from the fleets. I am not sure, however, what is the definition

of "working fisherman." The hon. Gentleman has referred to the position in my constituency. It is a matter which will have to be treated with the greatest consideration and understanding. If one is to define a working fisherman in too close terms, it means a great many opportunities for building new boats will not be able to be taken up. I am an easily provoked man, but, under a repulsive exterior, I have a heart of gold, and I do wish the scheme every success.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I want to make three short points in particular and three more in general. Paragraph 3 (1, b) deals with the question of the working owner which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). I hope this will not be drawn too closely and that the grant will be available to the man who has been a fisherman for many years but has retired and whose son is fishing in some sort of partnership with him.
Paragraph 5 says that applicants for grants must satisfy the Authority with regard to the prospect of their being able to operate fishing vessel successfully. We know that the White Fish Authority have local people who will possibly carry out this work, but I hope they will be sufficiently local to know the right men, so that they will get these facilities.
Paragraph 9 says that the boats must be built in the United Kingdom. That would seem obvious, but there is an important point here. There are many small yards round our country which it is essential for us from a defence point of view to keep in being. If this work can be given to those small yards, it will be valuable. The standard of vessels is dealt with in paragraph 9 (3). I join with the hon. Member for Lowestoft in hoping that the best facilities will be afforded to the larger vessels, but I also hope that these standards will not be drawn in such a way that, where they apply in the case of the inshore man, the Authority will not insist on a standard which they cannot possibly, and do not need, to maintain because of the time they are at sea.
Now for my three general points. I am sure that most hon. Members will welcome this Measure, but we want to be sure that there will be no undue inter-


ference. Calling for books and all those things may be necessary safeguards, but let us hope that they will not be carried too far. We do not want the small fisherman, who perhaps is not very expert at keeping books, to be interfered with unnecessarily. I hope that any measures envisaged will not cause unnecessary delay in the provision of these facilities.
Lastly, and most important, is the point that we know the needs for the bigger fishermen, the near middle water men, but I hope that the Government and the White Fish Authority will see that the inshore fishermen get their fair share because there is only a limited amount of money available. Today the inshore men of England, as I said last week, are in a worse position than those of Scotland, and I hope that will be borne in mind so that they will get what is due to them. Thereby the Government and the Authority will be helping the class of man who is essential to us, not only in peace but also in war.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I sympathise very much with the words which have fallen from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard). He will remember that the topics which he has discussed tonight were discussed very sympathetically in Committee. There was then an Amendment to the Bill designed to bring within the Bill not only those who were then already in the industry, but those who had been in it and had gone into the Navy and come back, and those who, for one reason or another, had temporarily left the industry and come back to it. I am happy to say the Act, and now this Scheme, include both types of people.
It would not be unfair to say that the two debates we have had during the last couple of hours are a meal in themselves. It is a rather succulent meal, too, because we have discussed agricultural produce, herrings and white fish. I am glad to be able to say a friendly word about this Scheme because, about a week ago, when the White Fish Subsidy Scheme was before the House, I found it necessary to be critical of it.
This Scheme is a very useful one, and it is exactly the kind of thing which was

envisaged by the Act, especially having regard to the amendments proposed and the undertakings given in Committee. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said that the Scheme is largely due to the Amendments which were made to the Bill in Committee at the instance of the Opposition. However, I do not want to make a party matter of this. There are, however, some comments I should like to make, and some questions I wish to put that I hope the Minister will answer.
Under paragraph 3 of the Scheme an applicant in order to be within the Scheme must base his application on a contract for the building of a vessel, or the supply of an engine, made after 31st July, 1952. Why is that date arbitrarily fixed? It will shut out contracts made earlier. People who made contracts after the passage of the Bill and before this date may be prejudiced. They are entitled to know why they are to be excluded from the benefits of the Act and the Scheme.
Under paragraph 5 of the Scheme applicants for grants must satisfy the Authority that they can operate a fishing vessel satisfactorily. From any point of view this is an entirely proper condition, because it would be wrong if grants were made to incompetents or landlubbers. But what is the definition of this expression? Does it mean physical fitness, youth or age, technical ability, or is it financial qualification? Whatever be the meaning, it is an entirely proper thing to have in the Scheme, but applicants for benefit are entitled to know what kind of evidence they will have to give to show they can operate a fishing vessel satisfactorily.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 relate to applicants' finances. Paragraph 6 requires an applicant to make a full statement of his financial position including his assets, debts, and obligations. That paragraph is almost as elaborate as a statement of claim or an affidavit in litigation. It says:
The Authority may require applicants to make a full statement of their financial position, including their assets, debts, and obligations, and to make available for inspection by the Authority, or their duly authorised agents, such books of account and other records and documents as the Authority may reasonably require.


That is not only a very wide paragraph, and a very elaborate one, but it is somewhat intricate, and I submit that applicants are entitled to know what it means, and what kind of evidence they are expected to adduce in order to conform to that paragraph. Paragraph 7 covers the case where expenditure is shared by two persons. I will not trouble the House by reading it. It speaks for itself; but it certainly requires some explanation from the Minister. I hope that he will give it.
Both paragraphs taken together seem to imply some kind of means test. It is right and proper that applicants for financial benefit out of State funds such as these should be the subject of some kind of test. But, again, I ask the Minister for a definition. What exactly do these paragraphs taken together mean? What have the applicants to face and what are to be the limits imposed on them by these two paragraphs?
I ask these questions not destructively, because I support the Scheme, but to enable the Minister to make a statement of a constructive and explanatory nature to guide applicants for benefit. There are many good points in the Scheme. One is that it is limited to British subjects resident in Britain and to corporations incorporated in Britain. That is designed to prevent money going to foreigners out of the country. Another very important and beneficial feature is one which results from an Amendment which was proposed by the Opposition in Committee and accepted by the Minister. It is paragraph 9 (3) which makes provision for the accommodation of officers and crew. That is in redemption of a very proper pledge which was exacted from the Minister in Committee. I welcome the Scheme which will, I hope, do something to restore prosperity to the industry.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few comments on this Scheme. I should like to apply my remarks in the short time that I can reasonably claim to the inshore fishing industry and the herring industry. First I should like to mention the point made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in controversy with

my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) about the new mesh that has been suggested by the International Commission. I think that it is true that that mesh errs on the wide side. There was an experiment carried out in the North of Scotland recently when I was there, and the results were such as to indicate that at all events that mesh is too big and will probably have to be contracted.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will forgive me if I touch on one or two of the points he made.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that it is within the competence of the House to discuss the decisions of the International Commission? What is the good of setting up an International Commission?

Mr. Duthie: Since the point had been raised I thought that I might tender the little knowledge I had on the subject. I would refer to what the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North said about paragraph 5 which deals with the selection of suitable applicants for assistance under the Scheme. The grave weakness of the inshore fishing legislation and the Herring Industries Act, so far as they gave assistance for procuring new boats, was that there was no real vetting of applications. I have pleaded on a number of occasions in this House for local vetting committees to be set up to consider whether or not applicants were suitable men to be given assistance.
Unless we have the right men in the wheelhouses these boats will fail. All the failures we have had under the inshore fishing Measures—and we have had a number—and under the Herring Industries Act have been due to the fact that entirely the wrong type of man has been skipper. That point cannot be too strongly emphasised. I hope that the Minister will take due note of it.
There is an inherent means test in paragraph 6. A similar provision was made in the two Acts to which I have referred and in many instances these tests were far too rigorously applied. If a group of fishermen wish to get a new herring boat at present, they have first of all to put down 15 per cent. of the cost, and the probability is that it will cost £10,000, so that they have to find £1,500. They


have also to find gear for the vessel. They have to find 200 nets if they are to be able to carry out herring fishing during the herring seasons round our coasts. That will cost between £2,000 and £3,000. They also have to get a large quantity of ropes, buoys &c., and these cost a considerable amount of money. A man requiring a vessel of this kind and applying for assistance must have behind him a considerable amount of liquid capital. I hope that will be borne in mind when paragraph 6 is applied.
My next point relates to paragraph 12. I deprecate the laying down of the law concerning the type of venture that a man getting one of these vessels should undertake. There is no doubt that these must be dual-purpose vessels. A vessel acquired under the auspices of the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board must be able to interchange her fishing methods as the seasons demand. A vessel may be a successful herring fishing vessel along the North Sea coast of Scotland during the summer months, and should also be capable of making a successful venture for white fish during the winter, and so on. There must be no hard and fast rule.
As to the distance these vessels are permitted to travel, I will venture a prophecy. In due course they will be proceeding into mid-Atlantic fishing with floating trawls, and I am sure that the White Fish Authority will come to this House within a comparatively short number of years and ask for powers to enable their boats to go across the Atlantic.
I am glad that this Scheme is before the House. It is long overdue. The fishing industry has been moribund for over a year, and assistance of this kind is eagerly awaited. I wish the Scheme well.

Mr. J. Grimond: I should like briefly to support what the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) has said about the expense to which inshore fishermen are put in the provision of gear, which is one of the most heavy outlays they have to meet. More particularly, I should like also to add to his plea that we should have some information about paragraph 12. Certainly in my constituency all the boats except one are dual-purpose vessels.
I take it that this paragraph is not intended to mean that in future either the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board will seek to limit the purpose to which vessels are put. The general tendency all round the coast is towards the dual-purpose boat. I know there is no intention in the Scheme to limit a boat, but there is some doubt about what is really meant. I want to be sure that in the future, if fishermen come forward for grants or loans, they will not be limited to one purpose or another.

11.24 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): May I briefly reply to the points which have been raised during this interesting debate, and say on behalf of the Government how much we welcome the general support that the Scheme has received in all quarters of the House.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked whether I could give him some evidence of the response of the fishing industry to this provision of grants for building new vessels. The response that we have had up till 17th July, in the form of applications made to the White Fish Authority for near and middle water vessels, has been for 16 new vessels—10 at Lowestoft, three at Grimsby, two at Fleetwood, and one in Scotland. This response is said to be no more than a beginning. The House will recall that during the Committee stage of the Bill we discussed the rate at which the fleet was running down; and the fact is that that running down is approximately at the same rate as last year. Then there was a loss of about 55 vessels, and up to the end of June the figure was 30; so that, over the whole year, it should be about the same.

Sir R. Boothby: Can my hon. Friend give any idea of the applications from the herring fleet?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I will deal with the herring and inshore fleets.
But to return to the near and middle water boats, it is among those that the most serious position exists, and it is there that we are most urgently concerned with getting large-scale rebuilding. We are aiming at rebuilding something like 500 vessels over the next 10 years, so we must


hope for something in the region of 50 new boats a year, and I hope, therefore, that we shall see the response doubled in the not-distant future.
With regard to the inshore vessels, we have had 16 applications from various ports in England and Wales, and six from Scotland, including Aberdeen; and for new engines, we have received a large number of applications—some 250 or so for inshore vessels. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has particular anxiety about fishermen not going ahead with fitting the wrong type of engines, but waiting for the type most suitable for the vessel, and I promise him that I will particularly call the attention of the White Fish Authority to this point.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), made comments about the restrictions under paragraph 12 of the Scheme; but what we have done there is merely to try to make a reasonable provision which will allow of a certain amount of fishing by these grant-aided vessels in distant waters, thereby trying to avoid exacerbating the problems already confronting the distant water vessels. Hon. Members will know that the distant water vessels are already in considerable difficulties because the demand for their catches seems to continue to fall, and this is the time of the year when, even with vessels laid up, they are still landing more than they can sell. We must try to find a proper balance, allowing the grant-aided vessels to make a number of trips to distant waters, but not to catch more cod, for example, and thereby aggravate the difficulties of the distant water boats.
I think that we have the right compromise. Most vessels in the near and middle water classes do not make more than two trips at present; that is the practice. From the Scottish ports, they may make three, but hon. Members will appreciate that this is a first scheme. We can quite well vary it in the light of experience if it is found that it unduly restricts operations. But I think we have a fair balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) asked whether we would expedite the

passage of this Scheme through another place; I can tell him that I think the members there are well seized of the necessity to see it passed as soon as possible. It will not be long, I think, before it is in operation.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) raised again the point about the working owner. I cannot help him beyond the definition in the Act. In Section 2 (5) it is defined that:
In this section 'working owner', in relation to a vessel, means a person who, being the owner or one of the owners of the vessel, regularly goes to sea in it when it is used for the purpose of fishing.
I agree that that is in very general terms, but it is difficult to be more precise. The exact interpretation in this context must be left to the Authority to interpret in a reasonable way.

Mr. Edward Evans: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) and the statistics of the applications, which show that Lowestoft ranks highest in the list, I hope the Minister will give very special consideration to this point.

Mr. Nugent: I assure the hon. Member that we will watch this point with great care to see that it operates in a reasonable and practical fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) had a similar anxiety, and my assurance, naturally, is extended to him also.

On the question of crew accommodation, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives inquired whether the standards applied to inshore vessels would be unreasonably high. The answer is that they will not be. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Authority would insist on the best current practice, even if it was higher than the standards of the Ministry of Transport. The answer is, of course, "Yes," because the existing Ministry of Transport standards are long out of date. A new code is in preparation, but it takes a long time to complete. That is why we put in these words, to ensure that vessels are built to a reasonably high standard.

The clauses which we have included to ensure that applicants are capable fishermen and have the necessary


financial substance behind them are, in our opinion, the minimum that can be put in to justify the expenditure of very large sums of public money. We are making a provision of some £9 million in total, and it is only reasonable that we should ensure that the men to whom these large sums are given are capable of making good use of them.

Mr. Edward Evans: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nugent: As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff has rightly said, it is quite useless for a man to set out in this hazardous and difficult trade unless he is really competent and has a certain amount of money behind him to withstand the setbacks that are bound to arise from time to time. But the Authority will interpret these clauses in a reasonable way and certainly will see that there is no unreasonable interference in their application.
I assure the House that the Scheme is drawn in a workable way and that the Authority will operate it with sympathy and understanding. I hope that it will greatly facilitate the rebuilding of the fleet, which we so much need.

Resolved,
That the Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1953, dated 1st July 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1953, dated 14th July, 1953—[copy presented 15th July] approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

TECHNICAL COLLEGES (OUT-COUNTY STUDENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

11.34 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy started its Sixth Annual Report by saying that:
The view is widely held that our economic difficulties are largely due to 'technical backwardness' in large sections of British industry, and particularly in their failure to exploit the results of scientific research.
Even at this late hour, I need not apologise too much for keeping some small part of the House to consider one rather narrow and technical problem which militates, apparently to a fairly considerable extent, against the provision of adequate facilities for technological education.
The problem arises, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, because where rather specialised courses are concerned the facilities are not complete in any one district of the country. That being so, a student who wishes to have education of a type not available in his own district has to be sent to where it exists, or local facilities have to be created. It is impossible to lay down hard-and-fast rules governing which of these two approaches is correct, because of the infinite variety of local circumstances. I suggest that there are, in general, two useful principles to apply to higher technology.
The first is that enshrined in Circullar 87 issued by the Ministry of Education in 1946, which established regional advisory councils, and suggested that higher technical education ought to be on a regional basis rather than on an area basis, or the basis of the local education authorities. The second useful approach is to consider what the student wants. Many other considerations will apply to other types of education.
I would not like to attempt to define higher technological education. One knows it when one sees it. That it is a well-known type of education is acknowledged by the Ministry of Education in Circular 255 of last year, which laid down a certain basis of grant for courses which satisfied its requirements. In


recent years, instead of the concentration which was suggested by the Ministry's policy in 1946, the concentration of specialised knowledge in specialised institutions, with highly qualified specialised teachers, the stream has flowed more towards dispersal. Instead of the students having a large measure of freedom to choose the institution and course which they think will suit them best—and when they get to this stage they are fairly well-qualified and intelligent persons—there has been a tendency towards a kind of dictatorship.
The bad effects of undue dispersal of effort are not difficult to find. Instead of having what I should have thought in specialised education was desirable, a small number of very good classes, there is a tendency to have a large number of small and not such good classes with, obviously, not quite so well-qualified teachers; and consequently, in institutions which have courses of a very high standard, it becomes difficult for economic reasons to maintain them. Since 1945 the tendency towards dispersal, as I have said, seems to have gained ground.
It is necessary to take only a very few examples of the kind of difficulty which exists to see the kind of effect—very discouraging it must be—that is brought about on the mind of the student. I have an example where one local authority refused vouchers for students to attend a course in an establishment outside its own boundary, 100 or 200 yards across the county boundary, and referred students to an institution in their own area. The students went there only to find no course could be provided because the demand was insufficient, and the students were then given vouchers to attend the institution of their choice. It looks as though in this case the local authority which was asked for the vouchers tried to create a demand within its own boundaries, to justify a course in their own area, irrespective of the perfectly adequate provisions which were already made elsewhere.
Another example of which I have been given particulars concerns research, which can obviously only be developed in establishments already undertaking the most advanced type of work. In research it is fairly clear that only two things matter.

The man carrying on research should go to the institution best suited for his purpose, and have the director best qualified to give him guidance, and whether he happens to live in Surrey or Kent or Middlesex, or whether the institution happens to be in Surrey or Kent or Middlesex, matters as little as whether he has blue eyes or prominent teeth.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): But that may make all the difference to his life.

Mr. Wells: It may make all the difference to his life in one sense, but it will not make very much difference to his proficiency as a research worker in a particular form of technology. As to the general and private effects of blue eyes, I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary is a much greater authority on that sort of thing than I am.
It would be tedious, and time does not permit me, to develop the number of examples I have been given, but there is a very serious aspect of this problem from the student's point of view. If the student is not helped by the authority, is not given the voucher by the authority of his area to go to the institution of his choice, and if he is not satisfied that he can get instruction of a similar quality except at the institution of his choice, the only line of action that remains for him is to pay for the course himself or to get some well-disposed person to pay for it for him. The gross cost in London of a course of this kind is in the nature, I believe, of £125 a year, and that an individual student should be called upon to pay a fee that is just about double that of a non-resident university fee is, I suggest, a monstrous exaction.
This is a problem which raises a number of questions on which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is able, to give some indication of what the Ministry's policy in the near future is going to be. The first question is what is the policy of the Minister with regard to the question of the dispersion of courses, on the one hand, and contrasted with it the regional basis of organisation, on the other. The second point arises on the words of the Circular No. 255, which lays down the conditions under which 75 per cent. grants can be obtained, and says that amongst the desiderata


which must be satisfied are satisfactory arrangements for the admission of out-county students. What are the Ministry's interpretations of the phrase "satisfactory arrangements"?
The third point I should like to ask is whether the Ministry intend to take advantage of the opportunity that appears to be presented by Section 7 (1) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act this year to clarify these questions either by way of Statutory Instrument or by way of administrative circular?
Whatever the answer to these questions may be, I suggest that this is a matter that clearly calls for the laying down of a firm central policy by the Ministry. One can guess at the difficulties in the way of that, but it is quite fantastic that in one authority, for example, there should be no facilities at all for the giving of vouchers for the pursuit of higher studies outside the county boundaries, and that in a county which is not well equipped in this way. The ultimate question which this matter involves is whether higher technology is a suitable matter for the control of local education authorities at all. However, discussion of that wider implication must await another occasion, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could in his reply deal with the narrower questions I have tried to raise.

11.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I shall do my best in the time at my disposal to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). I agree that the last question he raised would be a question which it would clearly not be in order to answer upon this occasion, and if it were in order it would require a lengthy debate. However, unless he is willing to remember why that great question is inappropriate in this debate, I think his smaller questions are likely to fall out of proportion. So long as it is believed that there ought to be some kind of localism, whether it is 150 L.E.As. or whether it is 10 regions or upon any geographical basis, there must be borderline cases; there is no way round that.
So, similarly, when the hon. Gentleman talked about not being able to define technology but knowing it when he sees

it, I reflected a little ruefully that I was once severely rebuked for saying that and following it with Professor Houseman's little joke about the fox terrier and the rat. I thought the hon. Gentleman was very optimistic—I will not say in supposing that every fox terrier knows a rat when he smells it, but in supposing that everybody thinks he is smelling the same kind of rat when he utters the vocable "technology." My sad experience is that no two people, and least of all the experts, use the word in the same sense in two consecutive sentences.
Of course, the Ministry is not, in any way, resiling—I think that is the word, but I am not sure of that one—from either the principle of regionalism for higher technology or the principle of letting the student have what he wants when one knows what it is and does not think it will do him too much harm. That principle is certainly accepted by Her Majesty's present advisers, even the humblest of them.
I think the best thing to do is to jump over the arguments we have had from the other side to some of the more particular questions which have been put. The intention of Circular 255 is still fully held. The words in Section 7 of the Statute are there now, but they were not there when the Circular was drafted and issued. If these words had already been upon the Statute Book, our expressions about "satisfactory arrangements for out-country students" would not have been necessary.
The effect now of the Statute, leaving out the machinery of amendment and the draftsman's necessary verbiage, is that where the other authority has consented—that is to say, the authority which is not actually providing the education-then the authority providing the further education shall be recouped, partly or wholly, as may be agreed between the two parties, or, for lack of such agreement, as may be settled by the Minister. That really answers the hon. Gentleman's point about "satisfactory arrangements." The point does not really, I hope, arise any longer, and I hope we are not going to have very much difficulty in the way of getting general reciprocity over this matter.
This branch of education is, of all subjects, perhaps the most difficult to discuss


in a short time, because it consists partly of generalisations and long words, not exactly defined, and partly of an infinite mass of tiny details, and neither of these two things can be handled very quickly. I may say cursorily that there is no desire to walk away from the principle of regionalism. Moreover, we do not believe that there has been in the last three or four years the tendency of which the hon. Gentleman complains. It would take a great deal of enquiry to make sure if he is mistaken, but the best advice I can get is that his view is believed to rest upon a misapprehension. It is still the intention, as Circular 255 has made quite clear, to encourage the higher teaching, and to give a new higher rate of grant, to a strictly selected number of courses, and therefore to a small number of colleges.
At a less advanced level it must not be presumed that it is always wise to meet needs for more teaching by increasing numbers at existing well-established institutions. It is naturally the case that a person thinking of studying this or that topic up to a more or less advanced level begins by thinking that he would soonest do it at the place he has most often heard favourably connected with the subject, in conversation and otherwise. That is perfectly proper. There is a certain degree of fashion in it which is inevitable; there is a certain amount of prestige value and of actual intrinsic value. But it does not follow that that should always be the deciding factor.
Nearly all the major technical colleges are making full use—that is to say, full use within the hours of convenience, not in the sense that they are doing it on a three-shift basis for 24 hours of the day—of their accommodation. To provide for greater numbers here would require additional building as certainly, and I think one could say as much, as to do it by starting new colleges or increasing small colleges elsewhere.
Higher technology apart, the technical colleges must be mainly concerned with day and evening students whose time for study is exactly and rigidly limited by their time for work and travel. When, therefore, we are considering the advisability of maintaining the regional tendency in the higher technological studies, we have to balance that not only against

the advisability but against the strict necessity of time being spent on travel by people who are part-time students day or evening.
The Ministry has therefore encouraged the expansion of studies in local centres where it is clear that that can be justified by estimates of local demand. These have almost always begun by being what are rather horribly called "feeder institutions" to the more established colleges already serving the region. And it has been policy for a long time, and still is, to develop the strong regional colleges for the more advanced work and to encourage the feeder institutions to send on their students for their more advanced courses. But naturally sometimes, maybe by their excellence, maybe by shifts of population, maybe by developments of highly centralised industry in one centre of population or another, one or more of these feeder institutions by one or more of these means will grow itself into something like a major college. That can and does happen, so that quite a considerable amount of more or less advanced work, but not the highest work, done in technical colleges is being done at such colleges without their doing any damage to the major, to the regional, the normative and superior colleges, which the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned to defend.
Wherever more technical or technological education is required, it is always necessary to balance these two sorts of considerations, and each time, of course, it is natural that the mature institutions should wish—ambition being the last infirmity of noble institutions—to undertake still more expansion and elevation; and it is equally natural and proper that in the area where the demand is growing, and where there is a consciousness in the local authority of their capacity to provide the technical, and indeed some of the technological, work, there should be an ambition to do so.
To balance these competing claims my right hon. Friend has had, and has now, and does fully use, the help of the Regional Advisory Councils and the Regional Academic Boards, which were quite few in the old days, but which since 1946, I think, have been developed to cover the whole country. She has that help; she has also the help and advice of inspectors, and she has thus a check


against excessive "empire building"—I do not mean to be condemnatory at all. No Higher National Certificate course, even if it is part-time, and no plain National Certificate course can be started without her consent; nor again any course which involves new building, whether an entirely new building or additions to existing buildings. Therefore, it is not possible for this tendency, of which the hon. Gentleman is more conscious than my advisers think accurate, just to ramp ahead like a tropical forest without our noticing what has happened.
I have indicated sufficiently the ways in which my right hon. Friend does endeavour—and I think without complacency one can say, on the whole, with success—to avoid the overlapping or supererogatory provision of courses by localities near each other, a danger of which Circular No. 87, as long ago as 1946, was fully concious.
It is a mistake, in our judgment, to think that the increase of courses, either in number, quality, or both, or in the number of pupils attending them, at the newer colleges, is necessarily at all damaging to the older and grander colleges. Nearly every major metropolitan

college is very short indeed of accommodation, and the numbers attending its less elevated courses can be considerably reduced without doing it any harm, and indeed doing it good in the sense of enabling it to improve its existing curriculum, both on paper and effectively, and to develop and add to it.
The hon. Gentleman really may be quite sure that there is no one more certain than those responsible in the Ministry both of the importance of technical, and particularly technological, development, and of the vital part which research plays in that. Really I am sure nobody could be more conscious than we are in those respects, and in suitable cases new building is being and will be undertaken with this purpose, for instance, in Northampton College.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.